Donations.-The undermentioned donations were announced, for which the thanks of the Society were voted to the donors : 1. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. II., Part 2. Presented by the Society. 2. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Nos. 78 to 86. By the Society. 3. Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Vol. IV., Parts 7 and 8. By the Society. 4. Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Paris, for January and March 1867. By the Society. 5. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. By the Society. 6. Report of the Students' Literary and Scientific Society for the Session of 1865-66. By the Society. 7. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. Paleontologia Indica. By the Bengal Government. 8. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, for the year 1864. By the Institution. 9. Reports of the extent and nature of the Materials available for the preparation of a Medical and Surgical History of the Rebellion. By the Surgeon General, Washington. 10. Results of the Magnetical and Meteorological Observations made at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, in 1863. By the Royal Society, London. Astronomical and Meteorological Observations made at the Letters. The following letters were then read :— 1. From the Librarian, Trinity College, Dublin, acknowledging with thanks copy of the General Index to the seventeen volumes of the Society's Transactions, and requesting a present of the first seven volumes of the Transactions to make the set of the Library complete. 2. From C. H. Crane, Esq., Surgeon General, Washington; S. L. Abbot, Esq., Secretary, Boston Society of Natural History, forwarding donations for the acceptance of the Society. 3. From His Excellency Lieut. General Sir Robert Napier, K.C.B., accepting the Presidentship of the Society, and conveying to the Members his appreciation of the honour done him in offering him the same. 4. From H. E. Jacomb, Esq., C.S., Under-Secretary to Government, General Department, forwarding, for the information of the Society, the following papers in connection with the question raised in an article in the "Bombay Saturday Review," entitled "Geological Action on the South Coast of Kattyawar and in the Runn": "No. 854. EXTRACT from the Proceedings of the Government of Bombay, in the General Department, dated 4th May 1867. Read the following papers:— Letter from Lieutenant H. MORLAND, F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., Honorary Secretary, Bombay Geographical Society, to J. KING, Esq. C.S., Acting Under-Secretary to Government, No. 2, dated 5th January 1867. In reply to your letter No. 1693, General Department, dated the 27th August 1866, I am directed by this Society to state, for the information of Government, that in their opinion the question raised by the "Bombay Saturday Review" in an article in its issue of August 18th, entitled "Geological Action on the South Coast of Kattyawar and in the Runn," is of great importance, and can only be set at rest by observations extending over several years. 2. There should be soundings taken in the Gulf of Cambay at the same seasons every year and carefully mapped, and observations made, as proposed by the Bombay Saturday Review, by "Mehtas" at different stations on the South Coast of Kattyawar and along the Runn. As to the encroachments of the sea on the Coast and in the Runn, inquiries should also be made as to whether any thing exists in the traditions and literature of Kattyawar throwing light on the oscillations of the land in Kattyawar. Rao Sahib Mahipatram Roopram, Deputy Educational Inspector, and Mr. Jettyshunker, Schoolmaster at Bhooj, might be referred to for the necessary information under this head. 3. But the only way to come to a true conclusion will be to make observations on the Coast of Kattyawar and soundings in the Gulf of Cambay extending over at least ten years, and as regards the soundings in the Gulf repeated again and again at intervals of twenty or thirty years. Ten years' observations will be quite sufficient, perhaps, to determine whether the sea is encroaching on the South Coast of Kattyawar and in the Runn. It may be that the Runn is subject to repeated oscillations, the effect of which, whether in depressing or raising it, will be as difficult and tedious to determine as the question of the filling up of the Gulf of Cambay. 4. The Society are also of opinion that the range of observations should be extended to Kutch and Sind on the North, and to the Northern and Southern Konkans on the South, as they believe the action of the sea on the coast of Kattyawar has a perceptible influence on the adjacent shores of Surat and Northern Konkan. Letter from J. KING, Esq., Under Secretary to Government, to T. OLDHAM, Esq., LL.D., Superintendent Geological Survey of India, No. 124, dated 17th January 1867. I am directed by His Excellency the Governor in Council to forward copy of Letter to the Secretary, Geographical Society, Bombay, No. 1693, dated 27th August 1860, with accompaniment. Reply from Secretary, Geographical Society, Bombay, No. 2, dated 5th January 1867. On the subject of the Geological action on the Coasts of Kattyawar and Cutch. the accompanying correspondence noted in the margin, and to request that you will be good enough to favour this Government with your opinion and suggestions thereon. Letter from T. OLDHAM, Esq., Superintendent, Geological Survey of India, to J. KING, Esq., Acting Under-Secretary to the Government of Bombay, No. 576, dated 26th February 1867. I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. 124 of 1867, dated 17th January, giving cover to correspondence relative to the action on the Coasts of Kattyawar and Cutch, and requesting me to favour the Government of Bombay with my opinion and suggestions. 2. I have never had an opportunity of visiting any of the localities referred to, and on receipt of your letter I, therefore, took advantage of the fact that Mr, W. T. Blanford, Deputy Superintendent, Geological Survey, had been in Cutcht, to refer the matter to him for his consideration, and have had the benefit of his local knowledge. Unfortunately, Mr. Blanford has only seen a small portion of the area referred to. 3. But the questions raised are of far more extended application than is here given to them, and I have the honour to submit to His Excellency the Governor in Council a statement of what measures appear to be needed for the full determination of the extent and nature of the geological action referred to. Evidence of this nature is really valuable only to the extent to which the searching question of " how much" can be safely answered. Memorandum by T. OLDHAM, Esq., Superintendent, Geological Survey of India, dated 28th February 1867. The article which appeared in the Bombay Saturday Review of 18th August 1866, from which an extract has been forwarded to me, raises questions which are of vast importance, and of far wider application than is therein attempted to be given to them. It is, perhaps, scarcely to be expected that a newspaper article would offer a fair opportunity for the discussion of such questions with accuracy of expression and nice discrimination of fact, and a certain degree of looseness in the application of terms may fairly be looked for under such circumstances. The writer would seem to have had two distinct questions in view; one, the illustration and discussion of the encroachment of land on sea, or sea on land, as evidenced especially by the Gulf of Cambay and the Coast of Kattyawar; and the other, the illustration and discussion of the alternate (? successive) rising and sinking of land, as evidenced by the Runn of Cutch. There is, however, no necessary connection between these two questions; they may be entirely independent one of the other; nor indeed is it quite clear that the writer intended to convey the idea that in his opinion there was any such connection. The first point to which he directs attention is the encroachment of the sea on the land along the South Coast of Kattyawar. He points out the local instances, in the Gulf of Cambay, of the universal fact that large rivers bring down to the sea and there deposit vast amounts of debris derived from the beds of rock and clay and sand, through which they pass, and illustrates the inevitable consequence of the discharge of such debris into a confined Gulf or Bay. There cannot be a shadow of doubt that the waters of the Taptee, Nerbudda, Mhye, and Saubermuttee, must, by the large discharge of silt which they carry down with them during every freshet, rapidly tend to fill up the Gulf of Cambay, and to push forward the line of coast lying between their mouths. But while this filling in may be rapidly progressing in one part of the Gulf, a cutting out and removal of parts of the shore may be as rapidly progressing in another part, and so far as the facts are stated, this would appear to be the true state of the The heavy discharge of the large rivers which drain into the Gulf from the east tends to fill up the basin on that side, and thus steadily, though slowly, to throw the force of the river streams so as to impinge upon the western shore. And the consequence seems to be the natural one; the western shore of the Gulf is being removed and swept away, while the eastern shore is gradually advancing. The amount of water annually thrown into the Gulf is probably not diminishing much, and every thing which tends to throw this body of water more against one shore than the other will (cæteris paribus) tend to produce an encroachment of the sea upon land in that direction. case. I do not quite gather whether the writer intends to convey the idea that the south-east coast of Kattyawar is being swept into the ocean by the scour of the great rivers he has just spoken of, which come from the east: he says, "by the scour of the great rivers seeking their level in it" (the Gulf of Cambay). If he intends to convey the idea that the creeks of the south-east coast of Kattyawar are being scoured out by the water of the rivers, whose mouths these creeks are, he is to a certain extent no doubt correct. But if he refers to the other great rivers, the Nerbudda, Taptee, &c., the facts he states seem quite opposed to the theory. In this case all projecting points would be washed away, but the creeks would be filled up, as they would form still backwaters in which the silt would be deposited. The periods given as those of greatest change are further not those of the heaviest discharge of water by the rivers. These changes are said to be most in June and November. It is, therefore, probable that the ordinary oceanic and tidal currents are the removing agents, rather than the scour of rivers. There is further nothing to show that this destruction of land is not local, and on the whole of small importance, or that it is not compensated by a gain of land on the opposite or eastern shore of the Gulf. The investigations suggested by the Bombay Geographical Society seem admirably adapted to determine this question of the alteration in depth and in contour of coast on the shore of the Gulf of Cambay. And there is no question that to arrive at any satisfactory results these careful soundings and surveys must bə extended on either side of the points more immediately under investigation. The second question of the depression of the Runn appears to me of very much greater importance. It is one concerning which the collection of accurate data is most desirable. It is more than probable that the few facts given in this article are only a small portion of what is known. But I must give a caution against admitting as conclusive evidence in favour of a general depression of the Runn from the single fact that the lands of one village, Bheemkutt, had been washed away. Such a case may very probably be due to local causes, and is not, taken alone, any proof of even a general encroachment of the sea, much less of a general depression of the land. I am by no means aware either that it is "universally admitted" that the Runn is an "upheaved sea bottom, upheaved by volcanic action!" Grant, who gave an admirable description of Cutch in 1837, did not think so, as he describes it is being filled by deposits brought by rivers. And Mr. Blanford, writing long before this article was submited to him, described it as "the bed of an inlet of the sea filled up by the accumulation of detritus brought down by the rivers. It is just at present in the debateable state: water part of the year, land another part, but every year must increase the height of the land surface, and consequently diminish the depth of the water at the period of the overflow. Of course, the whole may be an area of depression, but further proofs of this are necessary than the fact of a small portion having been sunk (and another raised) by the earthquake of 1819." To determine the facts as to whether a gradual secular depression is taking place in the Runn or not will need careful observations. The annual flooding of the Runn is stated to be caused by the sea being forced up the Gulf of Cutch and the more easternly mouths of the Indus by the South West Monsoon, the waters poured into the Runn by rivers being thus ponded back. If this be the case, it will certainly result that the depth to which the Runn is flooded during different years will vary with the intensity of the monsoon, and with the amount of the waters brought down by rivers. Observations, therefore, at that time of year would be worthless if used to determine any changes of level. To obtain any trustworthy results, I think it will be essential to erect fixed and solid marks-pillars of masonry with solid foundations-at intervals along the coast, |