exposes his life and health in a burning climate on the other side of the world. We make these observations certainly without any idea of denying the right of the East India Company to make any retrenchments they may think proper, but to show that it is a right) which ought to be exercised with great delicacy and with sound discretion-that it should only be exercised when the retrenchment is of real importance-and above all that it should always be accompanied with every mark of suavity and conciliation. Sir George Barlow, on the contrary, committed the singular imprudence of stigmatising the honour and wounding the feelings of the Indian officers. At the same moment that he diminished their emoluments, he tells them that the India Company take away their allowances for tents, because those allowances have been abused in the meanest, most profligate, and most unsoldierlike manner; for this and more than this is conveyed in the report of Colonel Munro, published by order of Sir George Barlow. If it were right, in the first instance, to diminish the emoluments of so vast an army, it was certainly indiscreet to give such reasons for it. If any individual had abused the advantages of the tent contract, he might have been brought to a court-martial; and, if his guilt had been established, his punishment, we will venture to assert, would not have occasioned a moment of complaint or disaffection in the army; but that a civilian, a gentleman accustomed only to the details of commerce, should begin his government over a settlement with which he was utterly unacquainted, by telling one of the bravest set of officers in the world that for six years past they had been in the basest manner sacrificing their duty to their interests, does appear to us an instance of indiscretion which, if frequently repeated, would soon supersede the necessity of any further discussion upon Indian affairs.

The whole transaction, indeed, appears to have been gone into with a disregard to the common professional feelings of an army which is to us utterly inexplicable. The opinion of the commander-in-chief, General Macdowall, was never even asked upon the subject; not a single witness was examined; the whole seems to have depended upon the report of Colonel Munro, the youngest staff-officer of the army, published in spite of the earnest remonstrance of Colonel Capper, the adjutant-general, and before three days had been given him to substitute his own plan, which Sir George Barlow had promised to read before the publication of Colonel Munro's report. Nay, this great plan of reduction was never even submitted to the military board, by whom all subjects of that description were, according to the orders of the Court of Directors, and the usage of the service, to be discussed and digested previous to their coming before Government.

Shortly after the promulgation of this very indiscreet paper, the commander-in-chief, General Macdowall, received letters from almost all the officers commanding native corps, representing in terms adapted to the feelings of each, the stigma which was considered to attach to them individually, and appealing to the authority of the commander-in-chief for redress against such charges, and to his personal experience for their falsehood. To these letters the general replied that the orders in question had been prepared without any reference to his opinion, and that, as the matter was so far advanced, he deemed it inexpedient to interfere. The officers commanding corps, finding that no steps were taken to remove the obnoxious insinuations, and considering that while they remained an indelible disgrace was cast upon their characters, prepared charges against Colonel Munro. These charges were forwarded to General Macdowall, referred by him to the Judge Advocate-General, and returned, with his objections to them, to the officers who had preferred the charges. For two months after this period, General

Macdowall appears to have remained in a state of uncertainty as to whether he would or would not bring Colonel Munro to a court-martial upon the charges preferred against him by the commanders of corps. At last, urged by the discontents of the army, he determined in the affirmative, and Colonel Munro was put in arrest preparatory to his trial. Colonel Munro then appealed directly to the Governor, Sir George Barlow, and was released by a positive order from him. It is necessary to state that all appeals of officers to the Government in India always pass through the hands of the commander-in-chief; and this appeal, therefore, of Colonel Munro, directed to the Government, was considered by General Macdowall as a great infringement of military discipline. We have very great doubts whether Sir George Barlow was not guilty of another great mistake in preventing this court-martial from taking place. It is undoubtedly true that no servant of the public is amenable to justice for doing what the Government order him to do; but he is not entitled to protection, under the pretence of that order, if he have done something which it evidently did not require of him. If Colonel Munro had been ordered to report upon the conduct of an individual officer-and it could be proved that in gratification of private malice he had taken that opportunity of stating the most infamous and malicious falsehoods-could it be urged that his conduct might not be fairly scrutinized in a court of justice or a courtmartial? If this were otherwise, any duty delegated by Government to an individual would become the most intolerable source of oppression: he might gratify every enmity and antipathy—indulge in every act of malice—vilify and traduce everyone whom he hated—and then shelter himself under the plea of the public service. Everybody has a right to do what the supreme power orders him to do; but he does not thereby acquire a right to do what he has not been ordered to do. Colonel Munro was directed to make a report upon the state of the army: the officers whom he has traduced accuse him of reporting something utterly different from the state of the army-something which he and everybody else knew to be different-and this for the malicious purpose of calumniating their reputation. If this were true, Colonel Munro could not plead the authority of Government; for the authority of Government was afforded to him for a very different purpose. In this view of the case we cannot see how the dignity of Government was attacked by the proposal of the court-martial, or to what other remedy those who had suffered from his abuse of his power could have had recourse. Colonel Munro had been promised by General Macdowall that the court-martial should consist of king's officers: there could not, therefore, have been any rational suspicion that his trial would have been unfair, or his judges unduly influenced.

Soon after Sir George Barlow had shown this reluctance to give the complaining officers an opportunity of re-establishing their injured character, General Macdowall sailed for England, and left behind him, for publication, an order, in which Colonel Munro was reprimanded for a violent breach of military discipline, in appealing to the Governor otherwise than through the customary and prescribed channel of the Commander-in-chief. As this paper is very short, and at the same time very necessary to the right comprehension of this case, we shall lay it before our readers.

"G. O. by the Commander-in-chief.

"The immediate departure of Lieutenant-General Macdowall from Madras will prevent his pursuing the design of bringing Lieutenant-Colonel Munro, Quarter-Master-General, to trial, for disrespect to the Commander-in-chief, for disobedience of orders, and for contempt of military authority, in having resorted to the power of the Civil Government, in defiance of the judgment of the officer at the head of the army, who had placed him under arrest, on

charges preferred against him by a number of officers commanding native corps, in consequence of which appeal direct to the Honourable the President in Council, LieutenantGeneral Macdowall has received positive orders from the Chief Secretary to liberate Lieutenant-Colonel Munro from arrest.

"Such conduct, on the part of Lieutenant-Colonel Munro, being destructive of subordination, subversive of military discipline, a violation of the sacred rights of the Commanderin-chief, and holding out a most dangerous example to the service, Lieutenant-General Macdowall, in support of the dignity of the profession, and his own station and character, feels it incumbent on him to express his strong disapprobation of Lieutenant-Colonel Munro's unexampled proceedings, and considers it a solemn duty imposed upon him to reprimand Lieutenant-Colonel Munro in general orders; and he is hereby reprimanded accordingly. (Signed) T. BOLES, D.A.G."—Accurate and Authentic Narrative, pp. 68, 69. Sir George Barlow, in consequence of this paper, immediately deprived General Macdowall of his situation of Commander-in-chief, which he had not yet resigned, though he had quitted the settlement; and as the official signature of the deputy adjutant-general appeared at the paper, that officer also was suspended from his situation. Colonel Capper, the adjutantgeneral, in the most honourable manner informed Sir George Barlow that he was the culpable and responsible person; and that the name of his deputy only appeared to the paper in consequence of his positive order, and because he himself happened to be absent on shipboard with General Macdowall. This generous conduct on the part of Colonel Capper involved himself in punishment, without extricating the innocent person whom he intended to protect. The Madras Government, always swift to condemn, doomed him to the same punishment as Major Boles; and he was suspended from his office.

This paper we have read over with great attention; and we really cannot see wherein its criminality consists, or on what account it could have drawn down upon General Macdowall so severe a punishment as the privation of the high and dignified office which he held. The censure upon Colonel Munro was for a violation of the regular etiquette of the army, in appealing to the Governor otherwise than through the channel of the Commander-inchief. This was an entirely new offence on the part of Colonel Munro. Sir George Barlow had given no opinion upon it; it had not been discussed between him and the Commander-in-chief; and the Commander-in-chief was clearly at liberty to act in this point as he pleased. He does not reprimand Colonel Munro for obeying Sir George Barlow's orders; for Sir George had given no orders upon the subject; but he blames him for transgressing a well-known and important rule of the service. We have great doubts if he was not quite right in giving this reprimand. But at all events, if he were wrong-if Colonel Munro were not guilty of the offence imputed, still the erroneous punishment which the General had inflicted merited no such severe retribution as that resorted to by Sir George Barlow. There are no reflections in the paper on the conduct of the Governor or the GovernThe reprimand is grounded entirely upon the breach of that military discipline which it was undoubtedly the business of General Macdowall to maintain in the most perfect purity and vigour. Nor has the paper any one expression in it foreign to this purpose. We were, indeed, not a little astonished at reading it. We had imagined that a paper which drew after it such a long train of dismissals and suspensions, must have contained a declaration of war against the Madras Government,-an exhortation to the troops to throw off their allegiance,—or an advice to the natives to drive their intrusive masters away, and become as free as their forefathers had left them. Instead of this, we find nothing more than a common reprimand from a Commander-in-chief to a subordinate officer, for transgressing the bounds of his duty. If Sir George Barlow had governed kingdoms six

ment.

months longer, we cannot help thinking he would have been a little more moderate.

But whatever difference of opinion there may be respecting the punishment of General Macdowall, we can scarcely think there can be any with regard to the conduct observed towards the adjutant-general and his deputy. They were the subordinates of the Commander-in-chief, and were peremptorily bound to publish any general orders which he might command them to publish. They would have been liable to very severe punishment if they had not; and it appears to us the most flagrant outrage against all justice to convert their obedience into a fault. It is true no subordinate officer is bound to obey any order which is plainly, and to any common apprehension, illegal; but then the illegality must be quite manifest: the order must imply such a contradiction to common sense, and such a violation of duties superior to the duty of military obedience, that there can be scarcely two opinions on the subject. Wherever any fair doubt can be raised, the obedience of the inferior officer is to be considered as proper and meritorious. Upon any other principle his situation is the most cruel imaginable: he is liable to the severest punishment, even to instant death, if he refuses to obey; and if he does obey, he is exposed to the animadversion of the civil power, which teaches him that he ought to have canvassed the order,-to have remonstrated against it,—and, in case this opposition proved ineffectual, to have disobeyed it. We have no hesitation in pronouncing the imprisonment of Colonel Capper and Major Boles to have been an act of great severity and great indiscretion, and such as might very fairly give great offence to an army, who saw themselves exposed to the same punishments, for the same adherence to their duties.

"The measure of removing Lieutenant-Colonel Capper and Major Boles," says Mr. Petrie, was universally condemned by the most respectable officers in the army, and not more so by the officers in the Company's service than by those of his Majesty's regiments. It was felt by all as the introduction of a most dangerous principle, and setting a pernicious example of disobedience and insubordination to all the gradations of military rank and authority; teaching inferior officers to question the legality of the orders of their superiors, and bringing into discussion questions which may endanger the very existence of Government. Our proceedings at this time operated like an electric shock, and gave rise to combinations, associations, and discussions pregnant with danger to every constituted authority in India. It was observed that the removal of General Macdowall (admitting the expediency of that measure) sufficiently vindicated the authority of Government, and exhibited to the army a memorable proof that the supreme power is vested in the civil authority. "The offence came from the General, and he was punished for it; but to suspend from the service the mere instruments of office, for the ordinary transmission of an order to the army, was universally condemned as an act of inapplicable severity, which might do infinite mischief, but could not accomplish any good or beneficial purpose. It was to court unpopularity, and adding fuel to the flame, which was ready to burst forth in every division of the army; that to vindicate the measure on the assumed illegality of the order, is to resort to a principle of a most dangerous tendency, capable of being extended in its application to purposes subversive of the foundations of all authority, civil as well as military. If subordinate officers are encouraged to judge of the legality of the orders of their superiors, we introduce a precedent of incalculable mischief, neither justified by the spirit or practice of the laws. Is it not better to have the responsibility on the head of the authority which issues the order, except in cases so plain that the most common capacity can judge of their being direct violations of the established and acknowledged laws? Is the intemperance of the expressions, the indiscretion of the opinions, the inflammatory tendency of the order, so eminently dangerous, so evidently calculated to excite to mutiny and disobedience, so strongly marked with features of criminality, as not to be mistaken? Was the order, I beg leave to ask, of this description, of such a nature as to justify the adjutant-general and his deputy in their refusal to publish it, to disobey the order of the Commander-in-chief, to revolt from his authority, and to complain of him to the Government? Such were the views I took of that unhappy transaction: and, as I foresaw serious mischief from the measure, not only to the discipline of the army, but even to the security of the civil Government, it was my duty to state my opinion to Sir G. Barlow, and to use every argument which my reason suggested, to prevent the publication of the order. In this I completely failed: the

suspension took effect; and the match was laid that has communicated the flame to almost every military mind in India. I recorded no dissent; for, as a formal opposition could only tend to exonerate myself from a certain degree of responsibility, without effecting any good public purpose, and might probably be misconstrued or misconceived by those to whom our proceedings were made known, it was a more honourable discharge of my duty to relinguish this advantage than to comply with the mere letter of the order respecting dissents. I explained this motive of my conduct to Sir G. Barlow."-Statement of Facts,

pp. 20-23.

After these proceedings on the part of the Madras Government, the disaffection of the troops rapidly increased; absurd and violent manifestoes were published by the general officers; Government was insulted; and the army soon broke out into open mutiny.

When the mutiny was fairly begun, the conduct of the Madras Government In quelling it seems nearly as objectionable as that by which it had been excited. The Governor, in attempting to be dignified, perpetually fell into the most puerile irritability; and, wishing to be firm, was guilty of injustice and violence. Invitations to dinner were made an affair of state. Long negotiations appear respecting whole corps of officers who refused to dine with Sir George Barlow; and the first persons in the settlement were employed to persuade them to eat the repast which his Excellency had prepared for them. A whole school of military lads were sent away, for some trifling display of partiality to the cause of the army; and every unfortunate measure recurred to, which a weak understanding and a captious temper could employ to bring a Government into contempt. Officers were dismissed; but dismissed without trial, and even without accusation. The object seemed to be to punish somebody; whether it was the right or the wrong person was less material. Sometimes the subordinate was selected, where the principal was guilty; sometimes the superior was sacrificed for the ungovernable conduct of those who were under his charge. The blows were strong enough; but they came from a man who shut his eyes and struck at random; -conscious that he must do something to repel the danger,-but so agitated by its proximity that he could not look at it, or take a proper aim.

Among other absurd measures resorted to by this new Eastern Emperor, was the notable expedient of imposing a test upon the officers of the army, expressive of their loyalty and attachment to the Government; and as this was done at a time when some officers were in open rebellion, others fluctuating, and many almost resolved to adhere to their duty, it had the very natural and probable effect of uniting them all in opposition to Government. To impose a test, or trial of opinions, is at all times an unpopular species of inquisitión; and at a period when men were hesitating whether they should obey or not, was certainly a very dangerous and rash measure. It could be no security; for men who would otherwise rebel against their Government, certainly would not be restrained by any verbal barriers of this kind; and, at the same time that it promised no effectual security, it appeared to increase the danger of irritated combination. This very rash measure immediately produced the strongest representations and remonstrances from king's officers of the most unquestionable loyalty.

"Lieutenant-Colonel Vesey, commanding at Palamcotah, apprehends the most fatal consequences to the tranquillity of the southern provinces, if Colonel Wilkinson makes any hostile movements from Trichinopoly. In different letters he states that such a step must inevitably throw the Company's troops into open revolt. He has ventured to write in the strongest terms to Colonel Wilkinson, entreating him not to march against the southern troops, and pointing out the ruinous consequences which may be expected from such a

measure.

"Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart in Travancore, and Colonel Forbes in Malabar, have written that they are under no apprehension for the tranquillity of those provinces, or for the fidelity of the Company's troops, if Government does not insist on enforcing the orders for the sig