equally Christians with them. I may add, of the Bishop of Gibraltar: Since my return, I have heard that his Lordship found all his efforts useless to conciliate the Malta papistical authorities; that he was much shocked at their treachery; and that he was determined, on his return again to Malta, _to become once more a good Protestant_. The truth is, he had nothing to do with the Roman Catholics. He was to mind and care for the Protestants in Malta, and on the shores of the Mediterranean. I believe, however, he did do something in the way of unpleasant interference with Colonel Warrington. It is well known the Colonel was high-priest of Protestantism through his long Consular service of thirty-three years, as well as Her Britannic Majesty's Consul. The Colonel baptized, married, and buried, whenever applied to. He baptized, married, and buried the members of his own family, and was surprised Sir Thomas Reade had not the courage to do the same. Of this the Colonel was very proud, citing the authority of some peer in the British Parliament, who said, "If the King's subjects wished to _procreate_ in a foreign land, where there was no parson, why should not the British Consul help them?" This the Bishop demurred at; but the Colonel supported himself on the authority of Dr. Lushington. The Colonel was undoubtedly right. Still, politically and ecclesiastically, it would be much better if English clergymen of some denomination or other were established along the line of the whole coast of North Africa, which would show the native Mussulmans we had a religion, and that we could afford to support and protect our co-religionists. The French reap a good harvest by _their protection of Christians_, which, characteristically enough, they use as a political engine of aggrandizement.