rity; but he must be a bold man in assertion,-bold as the Napiers themselves,-who would maintain that it was competent to the General to act upon this opinion in defiance of an existing military law, and in contempt of the Government under which he acted. Suppose a civil judge were to say, "The law is quite clear, and I ought to sentence the prisoner at the bar to a certain punishment; but I think the law impolitic and unjust, and I shall order him to be discharged." The flounderings of Sir Charles in attempting a justification are truly pitiable: he talks of mutiny, and, when it suits him, labours to prove that mutinous feeling was widely spread; yet in the midst of this, at a time when, if ever, the presence of the Commander-in-Chief was most desirable, he galloped away from the seat of apprehension, leaving the mutiny to take care of itself; nay, at the very moment he declared in words that there was nothing like general mutiny, but only some partial ill-feeling, shared exclusively by a few bad characters..

On the 16th January, 1850, he says, "I have seen most of the armies in the world, and I have never seen one that is better paid or better cared for than the army of the East-India Company; neither have I ever seen a more obedient, more honourable army." Then adverting to the very trifling insubordination that had been manifested, he said, "I will not allow A FEW MALIGNANT DIscontented SCOUNDRELS to disgrace their colours and their regiments by AN INSOLENT ATTEMPT TO DICTATE to their Government what PAY THAT GOVERNMENT SHALL GIVE TO SOLDIERS, towards whom it has always been both just and generous." Here is Sir Charles's sentence upon his own conduct as shadowed forth by that of others. He would not allow "an attempt to dictate to the Government." Of course not, he would have all the dictation to himself. He might dictate to the Governor-General, and it was the duty of the said Governor-General to obey with lowly reverence. It is true that Sir Charles says, in another place, "I did not dispute the right of the Governor-General to reprimand the Commander-in-Chief; but "-this "but" is like the postscript of a lady's letter, the most important part of the communication" but I denied and I still deny the justice of his exercise of that right." Undoubtedly this is a point to be ever denied. The power of the GovernorGeneral to reprimand is unquestioned, but he must not understand that power to be without limitation. He may at will reprimand Smith, Brown, Jones, and Robinson, but he must keep his pen clear of the Napiers, except in the way of laudation. They are a sacred stock, and must be handled more delicately than old China. But then will it be believed? Sir Charles complains that the reprimand was an "intemperate " one. It is in print and will speak for itself; it is decided, but, at the same time, calm and dignified. But, however that may be, think of a Napier condemning intemperance of language! This is positively too rich. We have heard of the Prince of Darkness rebuking sin: now we have a Napier first ascribing intemperance of language in a quarter where it had never been employed, and then reproving it; turning sulky upon its assumed use, and thereupon throwing up an office of high importance, but which did not relieve its occupant from the duty (the first which a soldier should learn) of due subordination to authority.

Almost the only remaining point of Sir Charles's defence is an attempt to lower the importance of what he did in

regard to the order, which he treated with such levity. He maintains that he did not cancel, that he only suspended, the order, pending the decision of the Government; and he argues that to suspend is not to cancel. Now, this is altogether verbal trifling. Suspension was, as to its effect, much the same as cancellation. The dissatisfied men ("the malignant discontented scoundrels ") got what they wanted. When the Government disapproved, would even Sir Charles Napier have been hardy enough to take it back again, had the Earl of Dalhousie prescribed such a course? The Commander-in-Chief was not a simpleton ; he knew that what was done was done; and that not only was the extra payment irrecoverable, but that the rule under which he should have acted, but did not act, could not be put in force under the same circumstances for at least a long period of time. He must have known that he was indirectly impeding the successful adoption of a large and comprehensive plan affecting the allowances of the entire Indian army, upon which the authorities, both at home and abroad, felt great anxiety. He knew all this, and he disregarded it. Napier willed, so Napier must execute. But he had not the magnanimity to carry it out with a bold face, but descended to the meanness of quibbling on the difference between suspending and cancelling. Suppose he had ventured a little farther. Suppose he had written something like this :-" My Lord,-Symptoms of mutiny having manifested themselves in a portion of the army here, I have deemed it necessary to act promptly and vigorously. I have accordingly caused the ringleaders to be seized, and by way of example I have ordered one of them to be blown from the mouth of a cannon, pending the pleasure of the supreme Government.” ” What would be the value of such a saving clause as this? The Government could not have the mutilated remains of the sufferer's body put together again; and though its attempting to recover the money wrongfully paid under Sir Charles Napier's orders was not physically impossible, it was morally so, as the Commander-in-Chief well knew. The thing was done, and could not be undone, and to talk of reference to Government, of suspending and cancelling, is sheer nonsense. A rule had been set at naught, the consequences were irreparable; and whether the act be called by one name or the other, makes no difference.

On such word-ringing as this did Sir Charles Napier rest his cause, by such cavilling did he seek to justify himself; that is, when he condescended to affect the semblance of argument, and did not get on the high horse and meet an overwhelming mass of facts and reasoning with such convincing phrases as "I assert," "I deny," "I shall not at present vouchsafe an answer," &c., in fact, in the old Napier style, "we are right, and all the world beside are wrong."

And now having seen something of Napier's opinion upon Napier, it will be worth while to look at the opinion of the greatest military authority of our days, one of the greatest that ever existed. What says the Duke of Wellington? Our readers shall have his deliberate judgment. in his own words :

"I have no hesitation in stating my opinion, that there existed no sufficient reason for the suspension of the rule, or order, of the 15th of August, 1845, at Wuzeerabad.

"That the Governor-General in Council was right, and did no more than his duty, in the expression of his disapprobation of the act of the Commander-in-Chief, in suspending an order of Government in relation to the pay of the troops, and in ordering the adoption of a former repealed order providing for the same object.

"I regret that the Commander-in-Chief, Sir Charles Napier, should have thought proper to resign the highest and most desired situation in the British army, to fill which he had been selected in a manner so honourable to his professional character. But as he has resigned, and I declare my decided opinion that the Governor-General in Council could not with propriety have acted otherwise than have expressed his disapprobation of the conduct of General Sir Charles Napier, in suspending the order of Government of the 15th August, 1845, at Wuzeerabad, I must recommend to her Majesty to acccept his resignation of his office. "WELLINGTON."

(Signed)

THE ENGINEERS.

WE learn that it has been determined to strengthen the corps of engineers at Bengal by an additional battalion, and to give to each battalion one additional captain and one additional subaltern. At Madras the extension of the number of officers in each of the present battalions will be the same as at Bengal; and it is intended there, also, to add another battalion. At Bombay the old battalions will receive the additional officers as at Bengal; and it is not improbable that, at a future period, an additional battalion may be sanctioned.

CORRESPONDENCE.

KELSALL V. FREEMAN.

[At the request of Mr. Kelsall's friends we insert the following from our brother of the Delhi Gazette. We presume that the paragraph referred to is one which appeared in this paper, not on the 17th October, but on the 29th September.-ED. Allen's Indian Mail.]

TO THE EDITOR of allen's INDIAN MAIL.

Dear Sir,-I am very sorry to find, in your paper of the 17th of October, a paragraph copied from the Delhi Gazette of the 6th of August, which reflects on the character of Mr. T. S. Kelsall, merchant, of Calcutta. That paragraph was written by me under the impression that the term "common informer" had been applied to Mr. Kelsall in its colloquial and offensive, rather than in its legal and purely technical sense. On learning, however, from a Calcutta paper, that I had been entirely wrong, and that the term used by the Court was intended to convey no censure whatever on Mr. Kelsall, but merely to describe the peculiar and perfectly unobjectionable form of action by which he had proceeded against the defendant, I published, without delay, a correct statement of the case. This latter statement appeared in the Delhi Gazette of the 20th of August, and will, I hope, be republished by you, together with my assurance of regret that the Delhi Gazette should have unintentionally slandered a man of honour and of reputation. I remain yours faithfully,

Delhi, Nov. 28th, 1853.

The EDITOR of the Delhi Gazette.

BENGAL MILITARY Fund.

TO THE EDITOR OF ALLEN'S INDIAN MAIL. Sir,-As your Journal is much read by Indian officers, perhaps you will allow me, through its medium, to draw attention to the following comment on the Bengal Military Fund.

It is with much concern and regret, that I observe the state of the Fund to be such as to render it necessary to curtail the pensions to widows; but if the solvency of the Fund depends upon it, it is to their interest to submit. What I would wish to protest against is, that such reduction should be permanent, instead of holding out a prospect to those now on the Fund that the full payment will be resumed on the Fund recovering from its embarrassments; and that however urgent the adoption of such a measure may be, it should not be framed on erroneous principles.

I see that the resolutions have been carried by a considerable majority; but as the Fund, as now constituted, has two objects, the majority of the voters being only interested in one, it is not illiberal to suppose personal interest had weight with many voters, more particularly when ignorant of the claims of the widows, which I will endeavour briefly to state.

Prior to the formation of the present Fund in 1824, the Bengal army had a distinct Widows' Fund, flourishing with a very considerable surplus capital (I believe about eight lacs of rupees). This capital they gave up to the now Military Fund, under a guarantee that the pensions should be secured to the widows,

which was supposed to have been done by clause 22 of the rules, as published in the India Register.*

The erroneous impression I allude to is, the managers supposing they have been paying to widows at the rate of 2s. 6d. for the rupee, while they should only have received 28. 3d., the exchange allowed to the Fund by the Company, whereas the two subjects are wholly unconnected. The rate of pension granted to widows was the retiring full pay of the rank of their husbands, less Lord Clive's Fund; and as retired officers are paid at 2s. 6d., their widows are entitled to the same. Should the Fund never so far recover as to give the full pension, the permanent reduction should only be in prospective, giving officers the option of making up the dowry by other meaus; and under all circumstances, the widows of members of the original Fund should in justice be exempt from any reduction.

D

A SUBSCRIBER TO THE ORIGINAL FUND, WHO TOOK CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN THE TRANSFER.

TO THE EDITOR OF ALLEN'S INDIAN MAIL. Sir, I would once more, very unwillingly, ask the favour of your allowing this letter to be inserted in your next issue.

I was fearful. I might have a little understated the charge for a passage from India at Rs. 1,000; but a friend has subsequently told me that he came from Madras, in July last, by the magnificent steamer Indiana, for 801.

Reverting to the Fund rules, Art. 3, sect. 2, relating to subscribers who may redeem their subscriptions, should be revised; and in justice I do not think it should be limited in its action, viz. from the 1st July, 1846.

I must now allude to a letter signed "A Member," published in another paper, only to thank him for the information he has afforded, viz., that the Indian Government has inflicted the injury complained of! I was ignorant of the cause assigned until he enlightened me. The said cause, or fact, if it really be such, affords me great consolation; for I have that faith in the known liberality of the Hon. the Court of Directors, that I am sure there is not a gentleman of that body who would not scorn to profit by "a ruinous mistake," by which the widows' pension is threatened and an oppressive tax imposed on all their officers. I doubt not that, on a proper representation being made, they will, in the words of A Member," make every honourable reparation, prevent the ruinous reduction of the widows' pensions, and, in their wise controlling power, see that all is right for the future.

I wish here to state my anxiety not to blame any individual! It is the system of management of which I have complained and do complain (not the men!), as being diametrically opposed to the interests of the Fund. I readily allow there have been many talented men in the direction, who, had they remained long enough, or had more power vested in themeelves, would have done much to have averted the evils we have arrived at. Indeed, some of them are personally known to me, of whom I could not speak sufficiently well or too highly; but the misfortune has always been, that we no sooner get a clever director than the Government requires his services far away from Calcutta, or he retires from the service. The greatest objection of all, however, is, that the officers elected for directors have as much as they can efficiently do in their several government appointments, and consequently cannot bestow that undivided attention which the Fund demands. Now to the actuary! The correspondent "A Subscriber to the Widows' Fund" tells us there are two estimates of the deficit, one of which is only 10, or at most 12 lacs. If this estimate be correct (how cheering, contrasted with 28 lacs!), it would appear that neither the increase of donations nor subscriptions was necessary, taking as our guide the following quotation made by him from the actuary's report, p. 74: "I am therefore at present disposed to think, notwithstanding the deficit of 100 lac of rupees, there exists no urgent necessity either to increase the rates of donation and contribution, or to diminish the amount of pensions payable to the widows." Whose opinion ought the directors and the army to have followed, their own the same correspondent or their actuary's? It is truly marvellous and unaccountable, as observes, that the actuary's opinion was totally disregarded. In the actuary's opinion lay the safety of the Fund! In that of unprofessional men there could be little besides doubt and inse. curity.

Retired brother-officers! you are most of you paying (according to the actuary) higher rates than are actually required; yet you are, I presume, to be called on for increased donations and subscriptions! Rest not until you have the right of voting on every important question affecting the Fund! It is a privilege of all others which we have the greatest right to; and, touching the

The second class of benefits, namely, those granted to widows of deceased subscribers, are absolute; not dependant on the decision of the directors, but controlled solely by the regulations of the institution.

increased donations and subscriptions, if necessary, let not only us, but every subscriber on furlough unite with us, and pray the Hon. Court of Directors not to act on the propositions Nos. 1 and 2 until the final report of the actuary appears. Such application to be based on his opinion that they are unnecessary.

Since writing the foregoing I have read the letter in your < Journal, No. 234, signed "Fund." I hope my second letter, together with this, will satisfy him that I have never advocated touching the widow's pensions, nor would I on any account do so further than rectifying the exchange, and on which subject the Directors have expressed themselves as follows: "That it is an iniquity for a widow, say, for instance, of a colonel, to receive 3421, a year in England, whilst the widow of another colonel, who happens to be detained in India, receives but 2797. 10s." More! I deprecate altering in any way the pensions of all widows under the rank of major, unless imperatively called for and recommended by the actuary. I may ask "Fund" if he has read the whole of Art. 26, sec. 3, because he will find it embraces all other claimants on the Fund. Let me add, that article is the chief of the fundamental rules of the institution. It was wisely framed to guard against the possibility of insolvency, and was intended to be the main safeguard of the Fund.

Mr. Editor, pray accept my best thanks for your kindness in publishing my letters. I now take leave of the subject, and in doing so disclaim any other intention than that of securing the welfare and stability of the Fund.

22nd Dec., 1853.

A SUBSCRIBER.

To the Editor or allen'S INDIAN MAIL. Sir,-Your editorial article of the 19th ultimo gave the word of hope, if not of promise or comfortable assurance, so strongly in favour of the solvency of the Bengal Military Fund, that it is with the utmost alarm and disappointment the widows and their families-for whose painful situation you express so much sympathyfind no less than ten per cent. deducted from the quarterly amount of their annuities now in course of payment. This blow, too, is the more severely felt, as a number of the ladies in question had lately been induced to join in a memorial to the Hon. the Court of Directors, on which they confidently relied for a more favourable consideration being given to their earnest prayer to be spared so severe an infliction. As, however, that memorial has failed of its effect, they have now no other alternative but that of expressing the sense they entertain of the harshness, not to say illegality, with which they have been treated; and, accordingly, the following protest to that effect is now in circulation, not only for their signature, but for that of all subscribers to the Fund who disapprove of the measure referred to, and to whom, as you correctly intimate, the accurate administration of its affairs is by no means unimportant. If, therefore, you will kindly give insertion to this document in your columns, you will confer a benefit upon many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of both sexes, who may not have any other means of seeing it for a considerable period.

Your obedient servant,

G. SWINEY, Lieut.-General. "We, the undersigned subscribers to, and annuitants upon, the Bengal Military Fund, understanding that the acting agent has, under instructions from the Board of Directors in Calcutta, made a deduction from the last quarterly payment due to certain of the annuitants, hereby record our sense of the cruelty and injustice of that proceeding

:

"First, because Art. 22, sect. 3, of the Regulations states that the benefits' granted to widows of deceased subscribers are absolute, not dependent on the decision of the directors; but controlled solely by the regulations of the institution.'

Secondly, because Art. 25 guarantees to the widow of every subscriber three-fourths of her late husband's pay, to be made over to her in sterling money if she resides in England, or in rupees of 2s. 6d. each if she resides in India.

"Thirdly, because the deduction complained of is alleged to be in conformity with Art. 29 (of the old Regulations); which article, however, can apply to forthcoming claimants alone, and not to present annuitants. That article, as interpreted by the Board, would be quite inconsistent with the principle of annuity transactions; since, in making mention of annual income,' it confounds the disbursement of annual contributions subscribed for the purpose of additional annuities, with the due payment of annuities already separately funded, and, therefore, totally independent of all current receipts.

"Fourthly, because even supposing Art. 29 to be susceptible of so unwarrantable an interpretation, the alleged inadequacy of the Fund to meet its engagements has never been proved; on the contrary, the professional actuary has formally given it as his opinion that no urgent necessity exists even for increasing the rates of donation and contribution of the members.

Fifthly, because even if the erroneous interpretation of Art. 92, above alluded to, could be sustained, the sum deducted from the annuitants is not only excsssive in itself, but most unfairly assessed; inasmuch as whilst the proposition to that effect was carried by a comparatively small, and therefore incompetent, number of voters in India, the widow's income is taxed ten per cent., when the income of the subscribers themselves is taxed at scarcely one per cent.

"And lastly, because the annuities already paid for and funded constitute an aggregate investment for the exclusive benefit of the widows of deceased subscribers, and are a sacred deposit, over which the Board of Directors has no power whatever but to direct the payment of the stipulated periodical amounts. This fund was long ago declared by the actuary -originally appointed to investigate the affairs of the institution-to belong of right to the widows.' If really proved to be deficient in amount, the widows alone have power to consult among themselves as to the sacrifice which each and all may be called upon to make, until such time as the army, in its justice and generosity, shall take measures for replacing the sums which have been lost by* carelessness and mismanagement. There is reason, however, for believing that the losses adverted to have not extended much further than to nullify the "eventual benefits" contemplated in Art. 28, section 5 (of the old Regulations), and that the funded amount-now more than half-a-million sterling-is sufficient to meet the liabilities of the annuity branch of the institution, when the average age of the annuitants and the amount of annuities to be paid are together compared with the tables published in the actuary's report of 1849. But should an undoubted deficit appear, it is confidently trusted that it will not be greater than would be recoverable in less than ten years by the proposed assessment of from 12 to 25 per cent. upon the contributions of living subscribers, and to which assessment we cordially give our consent.

"For the above reasons we solemnly protest against the harsh and unjust measure of making any deduction whatever from the amount of annuity hitherto paid by the institution, and we appeal, in the first instance, to the Hon. the Court of Directors to interpose, and protect all the parties concerned."

GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY.

A special meeting of the company was held on the 11th instant, at the offices, New Broad-street, to consider à correspondence between the Board of Directors and the East-India Company, respecting the whole of the second 500,000%. of "experimental" capital referred to in the resolutions passed on the 31st of Oct. last, and for raising further capital; Mr. W. J. Hamilton in the chair.

The Chairman said, that at the last meeting of proprie. tors he proposed a resolution on the part of the Board authorizing the directors to enter into arrangements with the EastIndia Company for making extension railways in the Bombay presidency, and for raising 1,000,0007. at 4 per cent. interest. On that occasion a resolution was proposed, which appeared to be founded on an equitable view of the case, under the idea that the East-India Company were bound by their agreement to call up the remainder of the second 500,000. bearing 5 per cent. interest, before any portion of the 4 per cent. extension capital was raised. A resolution to that effect was added to that proposed by the directors, and carried unanimously. The directors, being anxious to carry out the wishes of the shareholders, entered into a correspondence with the East-India Company on the subject. The directors did all they could to induce the East-India Company to take the same view of the case as the proprietors, by calling up the whole of the second capital, 500,000l. at 5 per cent., before calling upon them to raise the second million at 44 per cent. ; but the East-India Company maintained that they had full power

* It is now very generally admitted that Mr. Martindell's defalcations, added to some smaller frauds which the institution has had to sustain, would, if they had been carried to our credit up to the present time, amount to more than fifteen lacs of rupees; and that the neglect of our Board of Directors in Calcutta to adapt all payments to the Fund to the altered value of the rupee, as made current by the Indian Government in 1836-37, has, by the same computation, occasioned us a loss of more than ten lacs. If, therefore, the re-adjustment of our rates of contribution in 1829 had been vigilantly superintended, we should now have been in possession of a capital of more than seventy-nine lacs of rupees, notwithstanding our real or supposed losses by remittance. In other words, if our present deficit should be pronounced to be twelve lacs, that sum would be covered, and we should have thirteen lacs surplus to our annuity fund; or if, on the other hand, our present deficit is found to be 284 lacs, as some wild conjectures affirm, we should even then have a real deficiency of only 34 lacs; and this I repeat, after setting altogether aside our estimated loss by remittance,-a clear proof that, under the settlement of 1829, our contributions (raised to their equivalents in current rupees) are fully adequate to meet our liabilities, as reported by the actuary in 1849.-G.S.

in the contract with the company to limit the length of the expe. rimental line, as well as the amount of capital to be expended upon it. On receiving a communication to this effect from the authorities, and an intimation of their determination to act upon it, the directors had no alternative but to recommend its adoption by the proprietors. The chairman concluded by moving a resolution, authorizing the directors to enter into a contract with the Hon. East India Company, for making and working an extension line from Callian to Shawpore, or otherwise, and to issue shares for the creation of fresh capital, to the extent of 1,000,000l. in the first instance, and such further sum as might be necessary; the newly-created extension capital to become one fund with the experimental capital, subject, however, to the payment of the varying rates of interest respectively.

Mr. Crawford seconded the motion.

Mr. Richmond said it was clear they must look to something else beyond the guarantee of 44 per cent. to enable them, in the present state of the money-market, to raise the capital for the extension line.

Mr. Tite considered the guarantee was satisfactory.
The resolution was then put and carried.

THE DEODAR CEDAR.

The introduction into Great Britain of this magnificent tree is an object well deserving the attention of country gentlemen, and indeed of all who take an interest in the increase of the vegetable wealth of their country. Attention has been called to the subject by a report from Dr. Royle, who has explored so laboriously and so successfully the botany of the Himalayas and other parts of India, and also by a letter from the same gentleman to Mr. Kennedy. The tree is specifically different from the cedar of Lebanon, with which it has sometimes been confounded. It grows to gigantic size; forests are known in which each tree is from 15 to 36 feet in circumference; trees have been found 160 feet in height; After others have been estimated at 180, and even at 200 feet. quoting a variety of authorities on the value and uses of the Deodar, Dr. Royle thus sums up :

"Having taken all reasonable pains to inquire into the opinions of others who have had opportunities of judging correctly of the nature of this wood, I think I am justified in concluding, what I have long thought, that the timber of the Deodar, from fineness of grain, strength, and durability, is not only one of the most valuable of the Himalayas, but as good as any other of its class in any other part of the world. Its durability is probably owing to its being so thoroughly imbued with resinous matter, which, though diffusing rather an agreeable odour, of course increases its inflammability. The wood is fine enough in grain to allow furniture, chests of drawers, and even writing-desks to be made of it. It is strong enough to be employed for the vertical pillars of mosques, and not only for the piers, but also for the horizontal beams of wooden bridges. It bears exposure to the wet, dry, and cold seasons of the Himalayas when employed for the roofs, verandahs, and the outer framework of houses and of temples, seeming without injury for ages; while boats made of it float on the Sutlej for twenty and thirty years. There seems, therefore, no doubt of the Deodar being fit for all the purposes to which any of the pine tribe are applied in Europe. If required, it may form the mast of some great Admiral,' be probably as good as the larch for building the huils of ships, and better than the much-used yellow-deal for spars."

Maulmain. 1

16. Eliza Moore, Hinds, Shanghai; John Bright, Barr, Whampoa; Roehampton, King, Mauritius; Enchantress, Ledger, Bengal; Columbine, Crisp, and Surpass, Sherris, Mauritius; Gul. terus, Keer, Madras; Thetis, Younghusband, Bengal.-17. Mercia, Johns, Melbourne; Ochtertyre, Stuart, Mauritius; Portia, Campbell, Singapore; Eliza, Sturdee, Madras; Colgrain, M'Gregor, Cochin.18. Tigris, Sledger, Madras; Wandsworth, Dunlop, Maulmein; Queen, Savage, and Mercury, Watts, Mauritius.-19. Josephine, Callaghan, Bombay; Monarch, Melville, Whampoa; Unicorn, Rea, Maulmein; Robina Mitchell, Evetts, Bombay.-20. British Tar, Sharpe, Ceylon; Sarah Charlotte, Dixon, Mauritius; Faneuil Hall, Bangs, Bengal; P. C. E., Sweetman, Penang; Ellen, Paddon, Ceylon; Ann Black, Robertson, Madras. -21. Glenorchy, M'Connell, Bengal; Carin Cecilia, Pratt, Manila; Helen Baird, Wilson, Sydney; James White, Taylor, Bombay.23. Sea Witch, Heaton, Shanghai; Canopus, Crosby, Mauritius; Clymene, Graham, Mauritius; Anna and Olga, Holst, Foochoofoo.-24. Roxburgh Castle, Hight, Melbourne; Mahee Ranee, Carr, Bengal; Appleton, M'Donald, Mauritius.-25. Hurricane, Tate, Melbourne.-26. Ashmore, Martin, Shanghai; John Knox, Munro, Shanghai; Salrina, Allen, Bengal. -27. Chronometer, Furze, Mauritius; Blundell, Lumley, Batavia; Egbert, Allsop, Mauritius; Crisis, Bell, Shanghai; Centurion, Edwards, Whampoa; Berbice, Longrigg, Ceylon and Mauritius.-28. Ellen Simpson, Heckles, Maulmein; Cambalu, Alleyne, Shanghai.-30. James Browne, Wilson, Bengal; Royal Albert, Norris, Madras; Abergaldie, Broek, Whampoa ; Old Hickory, Whampoa.

PASSENGERS DEPARTED.

From SOUTHAMPTON, per General Screw Company's ship, Mauritius, JAN. 15. For the CAPE.-Miss Churchill, Lieut. Everett, R.N.; Mr. F. Churchill, Mr. W. Hunter, jun.; Mr. G. Burleigh, Mr. Hull, Rev. E. Glover, Mr. Orme, Mr. Joseph, Mr. Levy, Mr. J. Maccus, Mr. R. Hamil ton, Mr. J. Prince, Mr. S. W. Rowe, Mr. Jones, Capt. Bickersteth, Lieut. col. Cary, Lieut. Harvey, Ens. Close, and Gen. Jackson. For MAURITIUS.Mr. Wingate, Mr. and Mrs. Stace and infant, Mr. J. Tayler, Mr. Moore, and Asst. surg. Whitby. For CALCUTTA Mrs. Whitcombe and infant, Rev. W. Gleeson, Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Hildebrand, Mr. J. O'Donnell, Mr. H. N. Noble, Mr. Ellis, Mrs. Gen.O'Donnell, Miss O'Donnell, and two sons of Gen. O'Donnell; Miss Cash, Lieut. F. Ellis, Mr. McClean, Mr. Ellis, Mrs. Ellis, and 1 child; Mr. Graham, Mr. Copland, Mr. Currie, and brother. For MADRAS-Rev. P. Gannon, Ens. Oakly, Miss Brocking and sister, Mr. D. W. Laughton, Miss Ireland and sister, Mrs. Ratcliffe, Miss Barston, Miss Minchin, Rey. Mr. and Mrs. Hale, Mr. Magrath, and Mons. De la Cour.

Per steamer Himalaya, from SOUTHAMPTON (Jan. 20), to proceed per steamer Calcutta, from Susz. For MALTA Mr. Higgs, Rev. J. E. and Mrs. Sabin, Mr. Maxse, Mr. Maxse, jun.; Mr. Dent, Mr. H. J. Smith, Mr. F. C. Smith, Lieut. R. Boyle, Mr. F. F. Hunter, Ens. Callen, Mr. Gould, Mr. Gould, jun. Mr. E. Brooks. For ALEXANDRIA.Mr. and Mrs. Bell and infant, Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Michalla. For SUEZ.-Mr. Broom. For ADEN. Mr. C. E. Beddome, Mr. and Mrs. Watt, Miss Tristram, Mr. J. Fleming, Mr. Westropp, Mr. Baker, Mr. D. F. Robinson, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Bell, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Gould, Mr. R. J. Campbell, Mrs. Moyle, Miss Morris, Mr. Ravenscroft. For CEYLON.-Dr. Cameron, Mr. D. J. Romayne, Lieut. Ball, Mr. Phillips. For MADRAS.Mr. A. Umphelby, Mr. Hill, Surg. McBeth, Mr. Campbell, Mr. J. Richardson, Capt. and Mrs. McDonald, Mrs. Ouchterlony. For CALCUTTA.-Miss Hartman, Miss Hall, Mr. Graap, Mrs. Webb and child, Mr. W. McKinnon, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. J. Ross, Mrs. Fraser, Mr. W. Harlkartt, Mr. Lissant, Mr. Alken, Mr. Germain, Lieut. A. Fraser, Mr. J, H. Young, Rev. R. O. and Mrs. Walker, Lieut. Greathed, Mrs. G. Tebbs, Mr. Greenhow, Mr. H. C. Lockwood, Mr. Latour, Mr. Harraden, Mr. Shallow, Mrs, Wilson, Maj. Walter, Mr. Prideaux, Mr. Lyall, Mrs. Greenaway, Miss Greenaway, Mr. and Mrs. Voigt and infant. For PENANG. Mrs. Scott, Master Scott. For SINGAPORE.-Mr. Adamson, Mrs. Hawkes. For HONGKONG.-Lieut. W. Carey, Mr. R. M. Lane, Mr. E. A. Le Roy, Mr. E. Buissonet, Mr. and Mrs. Man.

Major Henderson.

Major Freeth..

Dr. Mackinnon..

1,056

182 156

JAN. 10. General Belgrano, Louttit, Maulmain; Marshall Bennett, Harris, Batavia (to Holland); Caucasian, Davidson, Calingapatum; Gratitude, Saunders, Madras; Catherine Pemberton, Laylock, Madras and Demerara, 11. Cargey, Wood, Mauritius; Zoe, Taylor, Mauritius; Thomas Sparks, Morrison, Bengal; Venilia, Martin, Mauritius; Sunda, Perchard, Bombay; Lancastrian, Langley, Shanghai; Celestial, Jarman, Madras; Anne Jane, Little, Ceylon. 12. Autumnus, Harrison, Bengal; Isis, Lister, Madras; Sea Queen, Rowe, Singapore; Prince of Wales, Rippon, Singapore.-13. Victor, Brown, Singapore; Monteagle, Lorby, and Africa, Neill, Bombay; Norfolk, Brown, Madras; Norna, Cleland, Shanghai.-14. Geffrad, Briard, Shanghai; Patriarch, Christie, Bombay; Harold, Mann, Bengal; Tsar, Schilbey, Fowchoofoo; Nassau, Van Bockle,

BALFOUR, the wife of Charles, d. at 3, Cleveland-terrace, Hyde
Park, Jan. 28.
LAYARD, the wife of Capt. H. Z. s. at 16, Lincoln's inn Fields,
Jan. 7.

LISTER, the lady of G. A. Bombay Army, d. at Grove-house,
Laugharne, Carmarthenshire, Jan. 6. Less
MARJORIBANKS, the wife of Edward, jun. d. at 28, Belgrave-
square, Jan. 29.

SCOTT, the wife of Robert, d. at 2, Warwick-villas, Addison-road,
Kensington, Jan. 22.

WEBBE, the wife of Alexander Allan, s. at 18, Hereford-street, Hyde Park, Jan. 15.

MARRIAGES.

BRANDIS, Dietrich, Dr. Ph. to Rachel Shepherd, d. of the late
Rev. Dr. Marshman, and relict of the late Dr. O'Voigt, at Hove,
Brighton, Jan. 25.

DUPUIS, Rev. Harry, to Catherine R. d. of Lieut. col. G. T.
Greene, E.I. Co.'s service, at All Saints', Paddington.
GILES, Lieut. Edward, Indian Navy, to Emily, d. of the late
J. Atkins, at Belleau, Lincolnshire.

GRAHAM, Henry W. Hon. E.I. Co.'s service, to Harriette R. d. of the Rev. J. R. Munn, at All Saints', Paddington, Jan. 17.