by any individual throughout the campaign. I mentioned the circumstance to Lord Clyde, who was, I believe, as much struck with it as I was myself. I also noticed it in my "memorandum" which was published with the Chief's despatch.

I, myself, would have recommended Butler for the Victoria Cross had I not thought that, to do so, would be irregular, the act being performed when we were under the Chief's immediate command. But I had hoped that my notice of it in my "memorandum" would secure the cross for him; and can only conclude that it escaped his Excellency's recollection. I still hope, therefore, that if you brought it to his Lordship's notice, he may be induced to obtain the Cross for that gallant young soldier.

Very sincerely yours,

J. OUTRAM.

Lieutenant-General Sir J. Outram, G.C.B., to Lieutenant Colonel Mayhew, Adjutant-General of the Army, Head-Quarters.

SIR,

Calcutta, 27th December, 1858. With reference to your letter, dated 4th ultimo, to the Government of India in the military department, which only lately came under my observation, I observe that my letter to your address of the 29th September last was therewith handed up to the Governor-General by the Commander-in-Chief's order, with a commentary on the recommendatory list, which I had transmitted with that letter for his Excellency's consideration.

But my letter of the 29th September referred to a previous one, which I had addressed to you on the 25th September, without which his Lordship the Governor-General could not fully appreciate the grounds on which I advanced certain of my recommendations.

I beg, therefore, that you will do me the favour to obtain the Commander-in-Chief's sanction for laying my letter of the 25th September also before the GovernorGeneral.

In the commentary appended to your letter of the 4th November, I observe that it is stated that the cases of Captains Clerk and Rich, of the Military Train, are "not known to the Chief of the Staff."

The correspondence, or communications, regarding those officers, passed between Colonel Berkely and Major Norman, I believe, to which circumstance I attribute the Chief of the Staff not being cognizant of those cases; but I can have no doubt that his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief was cognizant of them; for I understood, at the time, that his Lordship approved of the names of two officers of the Military Train being submitted with recommendation for promotion, in the same manner as the names of two officers of each of the European infantry regiments of the 1st Division had been submitted by order of the Commander-in-Chief, conveyed through Major Norman. And, with the utmost respect, I beg leave to appeal to his Excellency for confirmation of this fact; for, to the best of my recollection, his Lordship did me the honour to express to me, personally, his approval of my recommendation of Captain Clerk, if not also of Captain Rich.

With reference to the remark in your commentary respecting the "subalterns" recommended by me, I beg to submit, that, in my previous letter of the 25th September, I solicited merely that "their names (if the rules of the service admit of it) be published in orders, as being registered for brevet promotion, on obtaining their company," a course which, I believe, had been followed on previous occasions. And in justice to

Lieutenant Hewitt, and to myself, as having recommended that officer, who you remark "is simply an officer of less than two years' standing," as also to the late Captain Dawson, I beg to refer to the eulogy of those officers contained in Brigadier-General (then Colonel) Sir R. Napier's report, dated the 5th October last, transmitted with my despatch, dated the 25th November.

I am, &c.,

J. OUTRAM, Lieut.-General.

Lieut.-General Sir J. Outram, G.C.B., to Major Norman, Officiating General of the Army.

SIR,

Calcutta, 17th May, 1859. I have the honour to acknowledge your letter, dated 7th instant, forwarding copy of a despatch from the Right Honourable Secretary of State for India, dated 16th February last, communicating observations on the list of recommendations made by me for further promotions and honours on account of services performed by several officers recently under my command, which, by desire of his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief, I am requested to return with such remarks as I may have to offer either with reference to the cases particularized by you, or any other points upon which the documents touch.

I beg most respectfully to observe, that had it not been for the unfortunate omission, when handing up my letter of 29th September, to transmit therewith a previous communication, therein referred to, which I had had the honour to tender to the Adjutant-General, under date the 24th idem, and without which I considered that "the grounds on which I had advanced certain of my recommendations could not be fully appreciated,"

this reference would, I believe, have been unnecessary, as I therein had submitted the requisite explanations. And as that document was subsequently forwarded to the Governor-General by order of his Excellency, in continuation of the letter of the 4th November, to which the Right Honourable the Secretary of State's communication is a reply, I presume that it has been transmitted to his Lordship (together with my letter, dated the 27th December last, bringing the omission to notice) with yours of the 2nd March in reply, and your letter to the Secretary to the Government of India, dated the 3rd March, conveying his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief's animadversions on the representations which, in my letter of the 24th September, I had submitted, of what I conceived to be the inequality that had occurred in the distribution of rewards to the officers enumerated in the list which accompanied that letter (and in the subsequently amended list transmitted with my letter, dated the 29th September). I do not, therefore, now-in deference to the decision which his Excellency pronounced in rejection of these claims-presume to recapitulate my arguments in their support and I confine myself accordingly to barely enumerating some of the individuals who, according to my conviction, have not been adequately rewarded, in comparison, at least, with others employed on the same service who had obtained greater rewards, as shown in my letter dated the 24th September; their relative positions being practically as follow:

Major Barrow, Major Dodgson, and Major MacBean,* *have received only the rewards to which they

* In the memorandum which accompanied Colonel Mayhew's letter of the 4th November, it is stated that Major MacBean had not been in charge of the commissariat since the first relief of Lucknow, which is a mistake, that officer having continued in charge of the commissariat of the 1st Division while we held the Alumbagh,

were recommended by the late Sir Henry Havelock, but no recognition of their subsequent services under myself after our junction with the Lucknow garrison on the 25th September, 1857, and at the Alumbagh, nor of Major Dodgson's previous services, under General Neill at Benares; whereas their comrades, Lieutenant-Colonels Olpherts and Brasyer, obtained the brevet rank of lieutenant-colonel and C.B., in addition to the brevet majority, which they had all acquired in common.

Major Crommelin has received only the rewards which I know were designed for him by General Havelock, for his services while under his own command, and no further recognition of his subsequent services under me during the two months we were besieged with the Lucknow garrison.

All these six officers got their majorities early in 1858 (Olpherts on the 19th January, the others on the 24th March), but shortly afterwards Lieutenant-Colonels Olpherts and Brasyer were advanced to the higher rank they now hold (Olpherts on the 24th March, 1858, Brasyer on the 20th July, 1858), while the others remain majors.

.

I was not aware, until informed by your letter, now under reply, that Lieutenant-Colonel Bouverie had obtained his majority, for services in Persia; that fact removes the inequality which I had supposed existed between his case and that of Major Spurgin.

Lieutenants Hutchinson, Innes, and James, have since obtained brevet majorities on obtaining their companies.

My explanation regarding Captains Clerk and Rich, of the Military Train (whose names appeared in my list as recommended for majority), submitted in my letter to your address dated the 27th December last, elicited from you, in your letter to the Secretary to the