efficient investigation of the matter. It is believed, then, that these human sacrifices are offered up on the part of the Raja of Burdwan; that whenever a case of serious indisposition occurs in the family, a human sacrifice is deemed necessary to remove it. On a recent occasion when one of the family, the young Raja himself, if we mistake not,-was afflicted with the small-pox, several immolations of this nature were perpetrated. It has been affirmed in the district, and without contradiction, that five sacrifices were made in a single year. The sacrifice must be voluntary, and the victim must be an only son."

Some occurrences have taken place in the native army of Madras (p. 27) which cannot fail to produce some anxiety. If it be true that these acts of atrocity are accompanied by posting of placards (p. 28), containing threats of vengeance if certain reforms are not adopted, these are symptoms of a decided change in the morale of that part of the army.

Late intelligence from Bombay communicates an important fact,-the cession of the Arabian port of Aden by the Sultan, or rather Sheikh, to the East-India Company, who intend to use it as a coal depôt. This is a good port, and being in the neighbourhood of the coffee districts of Arabia. Felix, it may ere long be the emporium of a considerable trade.

The Bishop of Bombay arrived at the Presidency on the 21st February, by the Atalanta steamer, which brought London news to the 4th January ; and Paris news to the 6th!

The ill-fated town of Surat has been again visited by fire, which has caused great distress, aggravated by the cholera morbus, which rages there and at Broach.

The advices from China seem to denote an approaching crisis. The edicts emitted by the government, under express directions from Peking, enforce the necessity of the departure of the irregular traders, and intimate distinctly that the decree of expulsion, in case of disobedience, will include, not merely the iron-headed rats," but the British Superintendent himself. We recommend a comparison of the letter of a Chinese Correspondent of a Singapore paper (p. 35) with the prognostications in this Journal some years back, in the discussions respecting the abrogation of the Company's trade with China; they will be found to have been realized with a precision which is remarkable.

The intelligence from New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land is unimportant. From South Australia, we learn that the Government is in disorder, owing to dissentions between the Governor and the chief public functionaries. Mr. Robert Gouger, the Colonial Secretary, publicly assaulted Mr. Gillies, the Colonial Treasurer. The governor, Captain Hindmarsh, immediately suspended Mr. Gouger and Mr. John Brown, the Emigration Agent, from their respective offices. When the matter was submitted by the Governor to the Council, this measure was objected to; whereupon Captain Hindmarsh desired that the royal instructions might be read, relating to the power of the Governor when he differed from the rest of the Council; and he maintained his resolution with firmness, observing that he had not proposed the suspension upon the merits of the case from

the beginning, but upon the simple fact of a disgraceful street fight having taken place, so high an officer as the Colonial Secretary being one of the principals. "In October last, matters had arrived at a very serious pitch; the resident agent, Mr. James Fisher Hurtle, had signed and published an unauthorised paper or hand-bill, inciting the colonists to disobedience of the order in council of the 11th September last, suspending Mr. John Brown. Mr. Fisher had also designated himself Colonial Commissioner, instead of resident Commissioner, which Captain Hindmarsh contends is his proper appellation. The Attorney-General also, in council, seemed to offer opinions in opposition to those expressed by the Governor, who, in very frank terms, told the different members of the Council, that he would allow no authority to interfere with his decision: he was determined to support the dignity of the crown as far as lay within his power."

Our readers are aware that Captain Hindmarsh has been recalled, and it will be seen in our present Journal, that a successor has been appointed. Some energy, as well as skill, will be required to extinguish this discord, so prejudicial to the interests of the young colony. It would also appear, that the community are inclined to take part with the Governor; for the South Australian Gazette states, that the respectable settlers have requested a public meeting of emigrants, with a view to support the local Government, and to express their sentiments, that some of the malcontent functionaries sent out to the colony are totally unfit to hold their present

places."

The Cape of Good Hope papers are silent as to any of the ill-consequences which were foretold as the certain fruit of the Glenelg policy towards the Caffers. All is said to be well on the frontier; and it appears, in fact, that so far from cattle being stolen (the excuse for the old commando system), stray cattle are restored by the Caffers. We have no doubt that this calumniated people will justify the character which has been given of them by those who have no interest in blackening them. Meetings continue to be held to do honour to General D'Urban. The new governor, General Napier, arrived on the 20th January.

Some accounts have been received of the total defeat of the Russians by the Circassians. Nothing could create a more lively sensation of joy, than the final success of a people, who have evinced such courage and fortitude in the unequal contest in which they are engaged.

APPEALS FROM THE MOFUSSIL COURTS.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR-My attention has been called to a passage in the Asiatic Journal for April, in which it is stated, with reference to a debate in the House of Commons, on the 22d March, that Sir Charles Grey's "recrimination upon the judicial service of the Company was as groundless as it was uncalled for."

As I am not aware of my having said any thing which in any way answers this description, you will, perhaps, think it right to specify the expressions which you impute to me, or to publish my disclaimer of the imputation.

The Oaks, 23d April, 1838.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
CHAS. EWD. GREY.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR-In the number of the Asiatic Journal of this month, just published, there is the following passage :-"The fact stated by Sir John Hobhouse, that from the year 1813 up to the year 1836, this right of appeal had been exercised only twice, and when those appeals were made, the judges of the Supreme Court had been unable to decide the case, and were obliged to go to the judges of the Sudder Dewany Adawlut Court to interpret the law, and give an answer to the appeal, is decisive of two essential points in the question; first, that there is no necessity for this unequal right of appeal; secondly, that the Supreme Court is an incompetent tribunal of appeal for the purpose, which the judges of the courts themselves have admitted."

This is an improvement upon the statement actually made by Sir John Hobhouse, in the debate on the 22d ultimo, which was, "that out of two appeals to the Supreme Court at Calcutta, the whole number of appeals under the 53d Geo. III, c. 155, s. 107, the supreme court had found itself incapable to decide one of them, and that the judges had applied to the Sudder Dewany Adawlut to know how they should decide it, thus showing their own incapacity as a court of appeal from the Mofussil courts." I have nothing to say against the reasoning of Sir John Hobhouse, or the Asiatic Journal, if such were the fact. I have merely to correct the statement, by a declaration, that I was in the Supreme Court at the time of both the appeals referred to, and engaged as counsel in each appeal, and that there is not one word of truth in the statement, that in either case the Supreme Court made any reference whatever to the Sudder Dewany Adawlut, relating to the decision of such case. I was surprised to find that the President of the India Board was ignorant that Britishborn subjects have been enabled by law, for some years, to hold lands in the Mofussil in India; but I knew that, with reference to this statement, respecting the appeals, he must have been imposed upon by some person, who, if not personally hostile to the establishment of the Queen's courts in that country, and wilfully deceiving the President of the Board, to answer some sinister object, must have been grossly ignorant of the facts which he pretended to furnish. The only shadow of a pretence for this absurd falsehood, is the following: Under the 53 Geo. III, c. 155, s. 107, the Supreme Court is directed, for the conduct of all appeals, under that section, to frame rules of practice as near as possible to the rules and practice of the Sudder Dewany Adawlut, on appeals to that court from the ordinary Mofussil courts. On the first appeal coming to the Supreme Court, no rules having been previously framed, it became necessary to ascertain from that court, in what cases, and within what time, appeals were allowed to the Sudder Dewany Adawlut, and what were their rules of practice relating to it; for this purpose, and this only, a reference was made by the Register of the Supreme Court, under the direction of the judges, to the Sudder Dewany Adawlut; and upon the answer being received, the rules of the latter were adopted by the judges of the former, as they were bound to do by law; but no reference was ever made by the one court to the other on the merits or facts of the case, of which, at the time of the reference I have mentioned, the judges of the Supreme Court had no information, and which, therefore, they were wholly incapable of referring for any decision at all. No other reference whatever was made by the Supreme Court to the Sudder relating to their appeals.

The only other reference that I am aware of, by the judges of the Supreme Court to the judges of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, was in an ejectment case, in which a question relating to the right of a Hindoo to make a will arose.

This question had frequently arisen before, and the right of a Hindoo to make a testamentary disposition of his property, had been frequently upheld by successive judgments of the Supreme Courts, and had once been expressly decided on appeal to the Privy Council, in a very great cause, of "Mullick v. Mullick," and frequently indirectly by the same ultimate tribunal. It had also been recognized by various reported decisions of the Sudder Dewany Adawlut, and was stated to be the recognized law of Hindoos by Sir Francis Macnaghten, (an old practitioner, and subsequently for many years a judge of the Supreme Court in Calcutta), in his Work on the Hindoo Law, published in 1824. Mr. William Macnaghten, his son, however (then register of the Sudder Dewany Adawlut), in a work on the same law-and he was an authority entitled to great consideration-disputed this position of his father. Sir Charles Grey, in the ejectment cause referred to, in which also I was engaged as counsel, in favour of the right to make a will, thought it of great importance that the question should be set at rest, and a uniform doctrine established at once by the Supreme Court and the Sudder, and therefore proposed a reference to that Sourt for their opinion. The other two judges of the Supreme Court thought ít quite unnecessary, but that there could be no harm in ascertaining the opinion of the judges of the Sudder, although, if contrary to their own opinion, it would not alter the judgment which they were disposed to give; and, accordingly, that reference was made in the form of a case, submitted for the opinion of the judges of the Sudder, which was unanimously in favour of the right of a Hindoo to make a testamentary disposition of his property; but no reference to decide that or any other case (to my knowledge or belief) was ever made by the Supreme Court.

I shall take another opportunity of entering upon the subject more fully. My sole object at present is to correct an error calculated to create, and used for the purpose of creating, prejudice against the Supreme Court of Calcutta, which in my opinion has been for many years the object of much unfounded obloquy, and has never received less justice than in the late debate on the Indian petition. I am not, however, an indiscriminate defender of it in all respects, and at all times that it is more expensive than the court of the native Sudder Aumeens-that European practitioners in it receive larger fees than a native Vakeel, or even than their brethren in England (in some cases), may be readily imagined, and without difficulty accounted for, especially by those who reflect that Mr. Macaulay, who never received more than £1,500 for his services, as secretary to the India Board, received as a member of the council in India, £10,000 per annum; whilst the head of the India Board here receives only £3,500; that Lord Auckland receives £25,000 per annum, and the head of her Majesty's Ministers only £5,500. Sir John Hobhouse knows that very great reform in the expenses of the court have been made by the judges. If he did not choose to mention this, he might at least have hesitated to state, without due inquiry, facts to the prejudice of her Majesty's courts. Neither Sir Charles Grey, nor Mr. Hogg, was in the court at Calcutta, when both these appeals were prosecuted, and as nothing was said to distinguish which appeal the alleged reference for decision of the Sudder was made, they were unable to correct the assertion.

As the Asiatic Journal has extended the error, and I presume does not wish to create an unjust impression upon false grounds, I trust to your insertion of this letter in your next Number.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Temple, April 2, 1838.

THOMAS E. M. TURTON.