dicious conduct; the junction of this convoy was of the highest importance to the future prosecution of the war, and was the strongest detachment that joined the army during the campaign, consisting of 900 Europeans brought out in the ships of the season, 1,000 Bombay volunteers, 500 under their respective officers, and two troops of cavalry, with his own veteran corps, in all upwards of 3,000 soldiers, which in Europe would be considered as suited to the rank of a General Officer, Lieut. Colonel Scott then being only a Captain. At the close of the war, he obtained Lord Cornwallis's permission to return to England, his constitution having been greatly impaired by the arduous services of the two wars. Shortly after his arrival, he was appointed a member of that able and zealous committee for representing the heavy grievance of supercession by the King's officers. This grievance, it is well known, was ultimately set aside, and retired with full pay granted after twenty-two years' actual service in India. It may be fairly added, likewise, that to this committee, the India officers are mainly indebted for the present respectable footing on

which the India establishments are placed. Upon the reform of the army in 1796, owing to the impolitic formation of thirty-six fine Bengal battalions into twelve ponderous regiments, Lieut. Colonel Scott found himself so distant from the command of one; that, with many other zealous officers of his own standing, he was compelled to retire upon full pay greatly against his inclination, although he was also suffering from ill-health. He, however, with others, has had the satisfaction of seeing his juniors obtain that high rank, and those military honours, which were subsequently granted to this service by our Gracious Sovereign; and the recent reform of the Indian army will further reward many old officers who have been anxiously looking for promotion and retirement from active services under a Lake, a Wellington, a Hastings, and a Hyslop.

Colonel Scott's only son, Richard Hastings Scott, is a distinguished civil servant in Bengal. He obtained high commendation at Hertford, and the gold medal of merit at the College of Fort William. He is now Register and Joint Judge of the Civil Court at Moradabad.

将

SIR: In the last number of the Asiatic Journal, I observe an account (principally taken from the Calcutta John Bull), of an experiment of rockets. of Capt. Parlby's manufacture, which took place on the 13th December last. I question whether it is fair to Sir W. Congreve, to call them "Capt. Parlby's Rifle Rockets," because their construction does not differ from the original inventor's; and the credit that Capt. Parlby aspires to, is not, I conceive, for having made a "new discovery in the department of projectiles," but in having been able to manufacture in India, a weapon, that has hitherto

been procurable only in England. His proposition was submitted to the Marquess of Hastings in 1815, when Sir W. Congreve was considered as having established a claim to provide war rockets: and if since that period such pretensions be controverted, mány considerations must be well weighed before English rockets be superseded by those of Indian manufacture; and I might enter into a few of them now, but that a little delay may give us the means of doing so more satisfactorily. Of twenty-four rockets with shafts, fired by Capt. Parlby on the above occasion, six exploded, and six hit

the targets (the size of which I have not seen specified). There is no doubt of his being able to make rockets that will range 3,000 yards. (I have seen some of Sir W. Congreve's at only 25° elevation make their first graze at two miles); but the extent of range is not the principal point.

of the latter having been established these 20 years, the innovation is attended with inconvenience: for instance, what on Sir W. Congreve's simple plan would be called a five pounder, is designated a 1 pounder by Capt. Parlby. This may accord with the "Liber Ignium," of Marcus Græcus; but cannot now be adopted without confusion.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

.BAN بان

SIR: I have the pleasure to annex a copy of General Orders issued by the Bengal Government in 1822; of which many officers of that establishment now in England, may be ignorant; and as it is of importance to them, I tender it for insertion in your useful and interesting compendium of AngloIndian affairs; and if you were, at the same time, to give a transcript of the Honourable Court's Orders at home, on the same subject, the information would, I dare say, be new to many of your readers, who would be glad to get a memorandum of the forms directed to be observed at the India House previous to an officer's leaving England for the purpose of rejoining his regiment.

Extract from General Orders by his Excellency the Most Noble the GovernorGeneral in Council.

Fort William, July 5, 1822. Under instructions from the Hon. the Court of Directors, the Governor-General in Council notifies in General Orders, that all officers returning to India from furlough, are to furnish themselves from the Secretary at the India House, with a certificate and shipping order of the following forms: Nos. 1 and 3, before their embarkation, and that no officer will

be permitted to do duty or receive pay until he should produce such certificate.

"These are to certify, that the Court of Directors of the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, have permitted

to return to his duty on their military establishment, at the Presidency of in the East-Indies, without prejudice to his rank. In witness whereof, I have

hereunto set my hand at the E. I. H. in London, this day of year of our Lord

"East-India House."

"London

the said ship

the

in the

"It is is ordered that Capt. Comreceive on board and carry to India, affording all needful accommodations in the voyage, paying the expense of passage, and the Company being at no charge thereby."

SIR: A review of my edition of Sir William Jones's grammar having appeared in a recent publication, I trust your goodness will allow me the privilege of replying to some of the criticisms there offered, in your widely circulated Journal. It is not my intention to examine all the statements made by my reviewer; if the major and more important part of them can be shown to be erroneous, I have no doubt your readers will excuse my not troubling myself and them with a refutation of the whole. Nor is it my intention to object to any genuine remark made by my censor, or to conceal any thing which deserves to be mentioned. Those parts,

therefore, which will be passed over, I consider as unworthy of notice. The review, in question, is, so far as I can discover from a pretty close examination of its contents and spirit, a determinate personal attack upon myself. Both the author and his motives are, if I am not greatly mistaken, well known to me. But let this pass for the present. I claim no indulgence from the reader on this score, and will be content to be judged by the merits of the question presently to be discussed. A time will probably arrive, when it will be proper to ascribe to my good friend, "a local habitation and a name;" and, if I am not much mistaken, that period is not far distant.

The first position, called in question by my reviewer, is a statement found in my advertisement to the grammar, viz. That no considerable progress can be made in the study of the Persian language, until the student should have acquainted himself with the Arabic. This I stated as the opinion of Sir William Jones. Our re. viewer observes, "we shall, notwithstand ing this assertion, venture to express our doubts as to the accuracy of the position." Whether we are to understand by this, the accuracy of my statement, or of Sir William's opinion, is not very easy to determine but as both are called in question, it is probable both are here meant. Our

* Critica Researches in Philology and Geography, Glasgow, 1824.

reviewer proceeds, in the first place, to show from some extracts taken from the preface of the Grammar, that it was Sir W. Jones's opinion, that a student may, within the course of a year, learn to translate and even to speak the Persian with accuracy and elegance, without the assistance of Arabic. Hence, I suppose, we are to infer, that it was his opinion, that a knowledge of the Arabic was not necessary; and, consequently, that my statement is

erroneous.

In the very next page, however, Sir William's opinion is thus cited by our reviewer, which will be answer sufficient, as to the accuracy of my statement. "True it is," says he, "that Sir William elsewhere talks of the impossibility of learning the Persian language accurately, without a moderate knowledge of the Arabic. But the assertion," continues he, "is grounded upon the fact, that Meninski's dictionary was the one then in use, whereas the case is now altered."

But how, Mr. Editor, is the case altered? Supposing we were to allow that Meninski's dictionary is not the one now in use, will this alter the case as to Sir William Jones's opinion? If so, then are the opinions of all former writers altered, because, forsooth, the times are changed!

Again, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Meninski's dictionary is not the one now in use, but that Richardson's dictionary has taken its place, which every body knows is little more than a translation of Meninski. Will Sir W. Jones's opinion now be altered, because à translation of Meninski's dictionary is the one in use? And further, will the case be altered, as to the accuracy of the general position, that a moderate acquaintance with the Arabic is necessary to a proper understanding of the Persian language? If a knowledge of the Arabic was then neces sary, can the circumstance of Meninski's dictionary having been translated, at all affect our question? For my part, I can see no connexion whatever between the necessity of a knowledge of Arabic in this case, and the publication of Richardson's dictionary. Our reviewer has per

haps discovered a new rule in logic, as he certainly has several in grammar, with which we shall by and bye be favoured; and till this be known, the question before us must, of course, remain undecided. But the truth is, Meninski's dictionary is still in use; and, if I am not mistaken, is a better work than Richardson's. That it is not the one used by our reviewer, I will willingly allow, and can therefore excuse his ignorance of this fact.

->After a few feeble struggles in favour of the position, that the Persian language may be understood without the Arabic, a position which no one, if we except our profoundly learned reviewer, would think of maintaining for one moment, the whole is modestly and quietly given up and we are told at pp. 24-5, that " He (i. e. Dr. Lee) ought to have given the general rules of coalescence, permutation, and rejection of the letters which Mr. Lumsden, who must be acknowledged a superior scholar to Dr. Lee, thought it indispensably necessary to detail, before proceeding to the division and classification of Arabic nouns, because there are many Arabic nouns of common occurrence in the Persian language, the formation of which would be truly unintelligible without a reference to these rules. He ought then," continues my Reviewer, "to have accounted for the peculiarities of the surd verb," &c. It will not be necessary, I presume, to press this point any further; and we may now set down all that our Reviewer has said on this point for nothing,

I am accused, in the next place, of having detracted from the merits of Erpenius, and of having given a false account of Richardson's Arabic grammar. I answer, if any doubt be entertained as to the accuracy of my statement respecting the grammar of Erpenius, let the reader turn to M. de Sacy's Grammaire Arabe, vol 1. p. 212, &c., and, if what is there said fail to justify my assertions, the controversy will be with him and M. de Sacy: but of this, I believe, there cannot be much doubt. With respect to Mr. Richardson's grammar, I had said, that the want of the vowel-points is a great drawback to the beginner our Reviewer replies, " instead of Mr. Richardson's grammar wanting the vowel-points it is pointed throughout, in so far as the grammatical Asiatic Journ.-No. 103.

principles of the language are concerned." My statement is, therefore, contrary to the truth: but let us go on, and I have no doubt my good friend will justify every word I have said. "The examples," continues he, “given as illustrations, with one or two exceptions, are, however, unpointed.” And, in the very next page, "This does certainly present an impediment to the learner, and of a very harassing nature to him who attempts to acquaint himself with the Arabic language." Our third objection, therefore, dies a natural death in the obstetric hand of our kind and consistent censor!

In page 12 I am accused of having called Captain Lockett's work on the Arabic syntax a grammar, when it is only a work on grammar. By this reasoning Mr. Lumsden's Arabic grammar is not a grammar, because it treats on etymology only! Nor is M. de Sacy's, and certainly not Erpenius's and Richardson's, because they do not contain all that may be written on that subject! Glasgow will, no doubt, soon produce wonders in the philological way and I certainly wish it success. We are told, in the next place, that I have made no use of Mr. Lockett's book (grammar I dare not call it): but our Reviewer's eyes have deceived him. I leave this, however, as a stimulus for his future researches.

The next critique worth remarking occurs at page 15, where I am severely reprehended for not having placed the vowel points before the table of consonants; because, by this method, says our champion for reform, "the vowel-points, so essential in Arabic, would be indelibly imprinted on his (the learner's) memory.' But why may they not be indelibly imprinted on his memory after he has learned the conso. nants? Is there any thing of so terrible or magicial a nature in the consonants as to deprive him of his retentive powers? If so, the whole grammar had better be indelibly imprinted on the memory first, and the consonants last, which I will undertake to affirm would be a radical reform in the art of grammar-making! But suppose I had placed the vowels first, who could then have objected? Every one, I believe, who knew any thing of the subject, and for this reason: The vowels are, according to the Orientals, unutterable without a consonant; and hence they never precede a consonant. Had the vowels been VOL. XVIII. E