This hypothesis founded on the opinion of Major Rennel, carries with it no evidence whatever, but the speculative theory of that learned geographer. The identity or connection of the two Niles, and the consequent water communication between[312] Cairo and Timbuctoo receives (supposing the Quarterly Review to be correct), as our intelligence respecting Africa increases, additional confirmation: and even the Quarterly Reviewer, who denominated the opinion recorded by me, the gossipping stories of Negroes, (_vide_ Quarterly Review, No. 25, p. 140.) now favours this opinion! The Quarterly Reviewer appreciates Burckhardt's information on this subject, and depreciates mine, _although both are derived from the same sources of[313] intelligence, and confirm one another_: the reviewer says, Mr. Burckhardt has revived a question of older date; viz. "that the Niger of Sudan and the Nile of Egypt are one and the same river: this general testimony to a physical fact can be shaken only by direct proof to the contrary." [Footnote 312: _Vide_ Jackson's enlarged Account of Marocco, p. 310.] [Footnote 313: _i. e_. Intelligence from natives of Africa.] This is all very well: I do not object to the Quarterly Reviewer giving up an opinion which he finds no longer tenable; but when I see in the same review (No. 44, p. 481.) the following words,--"we 516 give no credit whatever to the report received by Mr. Jackson, of a person (several Negroes[314], it should be) having performed a voyage by water from Timbuctoo to Cairo," I cannot but observe with astonishment, that the Reviewer believes Burckhardt's report, that they are the same river, when, at the same time he does not believe mine. [Footnote 314: _Vide_ Jackson's enlarged Account of Marocco, p. 312.] Is there not an inconsistency here, somewhat incompatible with the impartiality which _ought_ to regulate the works of criticism? I will not for a moment suppose it to have proceeded from a spirit of animosity, which I feel myself unconscious of deserving. But the reviewer further says, the objection to the identity of the Niger and the Nile, is grounded on the incongruity of their periodical inundations, or on the rise and fall of the former river not corresponding with that of the latter. I do not comprehend whence the Quarterly Reviewer has derived this information; I have always understood the direct contrary, which I have declared in the enlarged editions of my account of Marocco, page 304, which has been confirmed by a most intelligent African traveller, Ali Bey, (for which see his travels, page 220.)