DISTURBANCES AT MADRAS. (E. REVIEW, 1810.)

Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the Dissensions at the Presidency of Madras, founded on Original Papers and Correspondence. Lloyd, London, 1810.

Account of the Origin and Progress of the late Discontents of the Army on the Madras Establishment. Cadell and Davies, London, 1810.

Statement of Facts delivered to the Right Honourable Lord Minto. By William Petrie, Esq. Stockdale, London, 1810.

THE disturbances which have lately taken place in our East Indian possessions would, at any period, have excited a considerable degree of alarm; and those feelings are, of course, not a little increased by the ruinous aspect of our European affairs. The revolt of an army 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 un

pleasant 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 purposes of economy by the Madras Government, this contract was considered as entailing upon them a very unnecessary expense; and the then commander-inchief, 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 years' experience and attentive examin

ation.

"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 opposition 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 profession, 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 courtmartial; 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 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 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