of eighty thousand men is an event which seems to threaten so nearly the ruin of the country in which it happens, that no common curiosity is excited as to the causes which could have led to it, and the means by which its danger was averted. On these points, we shall endeavour to exhibit to our readers the information afforded to us by the pamphlets whose titles we have cited. The first of these is understood to be written by an agent of Sir George Barlow, sent over for the express purpose of defending his measures; the second is most probably the production of some one of the dismissed officers, or, at least, founded upon their representations; the third statement is by Mr. Petrie,-and we most cordially recommend it to the perusal of our readers. It is characterised, throughout, by moderation, good sense, and a feeling of duty. We have seldom read a narrative, which, on the first face of it, looked so much like truth. It has, of course, produced the ruin and dismissal of this gentleman, though we have not the shadow of doubt, that if his advice had been followed, every unpleasant occurrence which has happened in India might have been effectually prevented.

In the year 1802, a certain monthly allowance, proportioned to their respective ranks, was given to each officer of the Coast army, to enable him to provide himself with camp equipage; and a monthly allowance was also made to the commanding officers of the native corps, for the provision of the camp equipage of these corps. This arrangement was commonly called the tent contract. Its intention (as the pamphlet of Sir George Barlow's agent very properly states) was to combine facility of movement in military operations with views of economy. In the general revision of its establishments, set on foot for the purpose of economy by the Madras Government, this contract was considered as entailing upon them a very unnecessary expense; and the then commander-in-chief, General Craddock, directed Colonel Munro, the quarter-master-general, to make a report to him upon the subject. The report, which was published almost as soon as it was made up, recommends the abolition of this contract; and, among other passages for the support of this opinion, has the following one :—

"Six years' experience of the practical effects of the existing system of the camp equipage equipment of the native army, has afforded means of forming a judgment relative to its advantages and efficiency, which were not possessed by the persons who proposed its introduction; and an attentive examination of its operations during that period of time has suggested the following observations regarding it :

After stating that the contract is needlessly expensive-that_it subjects the Company to the same charges for troops in garrison as for those in the field-the report proceeds to state the following observation, made on the authority of six vears' experience and attentive

examination.

Thirdly. By granting the same allowances in peace and war for the equipment of native corps, while the expenses incidental to that charge are unavoidably much greater in war than in peace, it places the interest and duty of officers commanding native corps in direct oppo

sition to one another. It makes it their interest that their corps should not be in a state of efficiency fit for field service, and therefore furnishes strong inducements to neglect their most important duties."Accurate and Authentic Narrative, pp. 117, 118.

Here, then, is not only a proposal for reducing the emoluments of the principal officers of the Madras army, but a charge of the most flagrant nature. The first they might possibly have had some right to consider as a hardship; but, when severe and unjust invective was superadded to strict retrenchment-when their pay and their reputation were diminished at the same time-it cannot be considered as surprising, that such treatment, on the part of the Government, should lay the foundation for a spirit of discontent in those troops who had recently made such splendid additions to the Indian empire, and established, in the progress of these acquisitions, so high a character for discipline and courage. It must be remembered, that an officer on European and on Indian service, are in very different situations, and propose to themselves very different objects. The one never thinks of making a fortune by his professon, while the hope of ultimately gaining an independence is the principal motive for which the Indian officer banishes himself from his country. To diminish the emoluments of his profession is to retard the period of his return, and to frustrate the purpose for which he 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 unsoldier-like 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 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 interest, 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 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 Commanderin-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 on 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 scrutinised in a court of justice, or a court-martial? 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 antipathyindulge in every act of malice-vilify and traduce every one whom he hated-and then shelter himself under the plea of the public service, Every body 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 every body 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 courtmartial, 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.

66 The immediate departure of Lieutenant-General Macdowall from Madras will prevent his pursuing the design of bringing LieutenantColonel Monro, 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 Govern ment, 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, Lieutenant-General 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 Commander-in-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 dis approbation 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 adjutant-general, 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-in-chief. 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 Government. The 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