THE SINGAPORE OBSERVATORY. 
[In a note fo Dr Little's paper on the Medical Topography 
of Singapore (Vol. II p. 461) we stated that the tables of 
observations made at the Singapore Magnetic Observatory 
alluded to and used by Dr Little, would be afterwards pub¬ 
lished at length accompanied by the Observer s notes. Some 
of these notes were in our possession at the time, but the tables 
then?,selves after being returned by Dr l ittle to the Observer 
were carried away by him for the purpose of continuing his 
notes, and in the course of his magnetic voyage through the 
Archipelago were mislaid or lost- Subsequent want of leisure 
and indisposition prevented his supplying the loss until lately, 
but we have now I lie pleasure to inform our readers that we 
have received a considerable portion of tables and curves, 
which we shall begin to publish as soon as our lithographic 
press arrives. Our correspondent writes, “ Lhave made out 
all the tables with a very great degree of trouble ; they com¬ 
prise observations for 5 years, 1st of the Thermometer, giving 
the temperature; 2ndly of the Wet Bulb, giving the moisture; 
and 3rdly of the Barometer, giving the pressure ; thus you 
have the most important elements of meteorology. With 
respect to the quantity of rain, the pressure of the wind, and 
the most interesting as well as the most easily understood of 
the magnetic phenomena, I will forward them to you in ano¬ 
ther paper. - - - Although a period of 5 years observations 
appears to me scarcely sufficient to determine the climate of 
a station, yet the instruments have really so little range that 
one year pretty nearly certifies another. In the barometer 
the regularity of the curve is perfectly wonderful ” The 
comments which follow on some remarks made by Dr Little 
and ourselves with reference to the position of the Thermo¬ 
meter in the Observatory, we give at once and separately. 
Our correspondent in a previous letter appealed to our sense 
of justice to insert his vindication of the entire correctness of 
his thermometrical tables, and as he appears to consider the 
remarks in question as very uncalled for, objectionable in 
manner, and as reflecting on his performance of an official 
duty, we cannot hesitate in publishing it, although we regret 
that he should have so greatly misconceived the spirit in 
which the remarks were written, and adopted a tone ot criti¬ 
cism somewhat more belligerent than the occasion requires, 
or is quite consistent with the manner appropriate to a 
Journal which has no object but the ascertainment of facts 
and the spread of truth. The point in dispute is a simple 
