MISCELLANY.

Observations on the printed Draft of a proposed letter, marked No. 128, from the Court of Directors, under date 4th April, 1805, to the Government of Bengal, which was rejected by the Board of

Control.

PREVIOUSLY to the discussion of the various points contained in the paper marked No. 128, it is expedient to state, that without a most minute examination of the records of the whole of Lord Wellesley's government, and without personal reference to the gentlemen who officiated as secretaries during Lord Wellesley's administration, it is extremely difficult to prepare a reply to charges, the greater part of which relate to matters of official detail, already decided in the usual course of official correspondence. The paper No. 128 was written nearly four months after the appointment of Lord Cornwallis to succeed Lord Wellesley in the government-general of India. From the voluminous nature of its contents, and from the variety of topics which are discussed in it, embracing almost every branch of an administration of upwards of seven years in duration, it is evident, that a considerable period of time would elapse before the paper could pass through the official forms prescribed by the legislature, even supposing that the board of control had considered it to be proper to sanction the transmission of the paper to India. At the same time, as far as the court of directors could form any judgment of Lord Wellesley's intentions with respect to his return to England, they had every reason to expect, from the tenor of Lord Wellesley's dispatch of the 14th March, 1804, that he would have embarked for Europe either in the months of December, 1804, or January, 1805. In fact, the St. Fiorenzo frigate had been prepared for Lord Wellesley's accommodation, and was for some time in the Hooghly river for the purpose of conveying him to England. The court of directors therefore must have known, that the paper No. 128 could not possibly reach India during Lord Wellesley's residence in that country; and as the paper refers in most points to Lord Wellesley's personal conduct, this proceeding appears to be inconsistent with the liberality and justice due from the honorable court to a person, who (however condemned in the present temper of the court) has received so many testimonies of the gratitude and approbation of the company, for his suc

cessful exertions in their service.

Had the paper No. 128 been permitted to reach India during the existence of Lord Wellesley's government, no difficulty would have occurred in transmitting a regular reply to the numerous charges which the court of directors has been pleased to accumulate in their proposed draft. It is evident that at this distance from India, without the means of obtaining the information which is necessary for the purpose of a minute examination of the grounds of complaint stated by the honourable court, any reply to the paper No. 128 must be defective. Under all these disadvantages, however, it is hoped, that sufficient evidence may be adduced to prove, that the charges contained in this paper are inaccurate and unjust, and that the conduct of Lord Wellesley is utterly undeserving of the construction which has been given to it by the court, in the imputation of motives which never existed in his mind, and never influenced one act of his administration.

It is proposed to adopt the same plan which the court has followed in the draft No. 128, and to reply to that document, as far as may be practicable, paragraph by paragraph, in the same order which has been observed by the court. COURT'S

VOL. 9.

to

COURT'S DRAFT, OBSERVATIONS ON THE COURT'S DRAFT, No. 128.

No. 128. Paragraph I. Refers to a Paragraph I. This severe censure of the court is former dispatch, in which stated to be grounded on the facts enumerated in the the court signified their in- subsequent paragraphs: it is confidently hoped that the tention of delivering their explanation which will be given of those facts will sentiments on the mea- prove that the court's censure is at least unmerited. sures of Lord Wellesley's 2. With regard to the first point, viz. the separate government: the court correspondence, it may be observed, that although for has on several occasions reasons which will hereafter appear, various letters been called upon to bestow have been written and signed by the governor general their warmest commenda- only; all these letters have uniformly been written not tion on the measures. of only with the knowledge, but with the concurrence of the Marquis Wellesley. It the members of council. The whole of this questica is with the sincerest regret has been fully discussed in the letter from the goverthat the court have seen nor-general in council, under date the 20th May, 1805, other proceedings, which an extract of which is given hereafter. The corresit was impossible for them pondence with the government at home also furnishes to contemplate with saris. evidence, that letters bearing the signature of the faction. The court then governor-general only, have nevertheless been written proceed state the with the kaowledge and concurrence of the members grounds of their displea- of council. In the letter from the governor-general in sure, and declare their in- council, dated 230 April, 1800, to the secret committee, tention of proceeding to paragraph 2d, it is stated: “ This dispatch, although state the transactions bearing only the signature of the governor-general, which are necessary to un- and for the reasons assigned in it, addressed indivifold, and substantiate the dually to Lord Clive, was written with our knowledge positions which they have and entire concurrence.” advanced.

3. In the governor-general's minute in the secret de. 20. Paragraph. Infrac- partment, dated Fort William, 12th June, 1800, OR tion of the law, and the recording the Oude correspondence, it is observed, constitutional

authority“ These documents have been already from time to and rights of the council, time communicated to the members in council.”. Other founded upon the 24th instances will be found by referring to the proceedings section of the act of the of government, which afford abundant evidence that 33d of his present majes- no measure was adopted during Lord Wellesley's goty, cap. 52, and act 13th vernment without the entire concurrence of the memGeorge III. cap. 48. sec. 8. bers of council. In fact, so cordial was the intercourse

The instances adduced between all the members of the government, that on this subject are, Ist. during the whole period of Lord We lesley's adminisThe separate correspon- tration, no member of council has ever recorded a disdence with the subordi- sent to any proceeding, which took place during that nate governments. Para- long and eventful period. graphs 2 and 3.

4. But the couit of directors observes, that some 20. The appointment of part of the separate correspondence has never been Mr. Henry Wellesley to recorded. The reason is, that much of the separate conduct a negotiation at correspondence contained discussions upon measures in Lucknow; the circum- contemplation, and a mere communication of opinions stance of his instructions between the parties concerned in the correspondence. being signed by the gover. It often bappened that these measures were not carried nor-general only, and his into execution ; on some occasions they were adopted in appointment to be lieut.. a different form, and upon these occasions, the sepagovernor of Oude. Pata- rate correspondence was not recorded. It was necessary graph 4 and 5.

to record it only when a measure was to be carried into 3d. The extraordinary execution according to the orders of the supreme aupowers granted to Gene thoity, and then it served to strengthen the bands ral's Lake and Wellesley of the governor to whom it was addressed in his own Paragraph 6.

council. 4th. That the governor- 5. The public service could not proceed, especially general had recorded mi- in time of war, if all separate correspondence between uutes at councils at which, the governors abroad should cease ; constant commuCOURT'S DRAFT, OBSERVATIONS ON THE COURT'S DRAFT, No. 128.

No. 128. he was not present, which nication must exist in the formation, as well as the bore a date different from execution of measures; otherwise the utmost confusion that on which the council must arise. was held. Paragraph 8. 6. On this point, however, as well as on the subject

5th. The mode of com- of the separate correspondence with Mr. Wellesley and municating the orders to with Generals Lake and Wellesley, as well as with reattack Jesswunt Rao Hol- gard to the mode of conducting the public business, kar. This complaint is of issuing the orders for attacking Holkar, and of comfollowed by a statement of municating those orders to Bombay, it will be suffithe duties of the members cient to refer to the letter from the governor-general in of the council. Paragraphs council to the court of directors, dated 20th May, 9, 10, 11.

1805, of which the following are extracts.* 6th. The appointment “ 'The orders for the commencement of hostilities of Col. Murray, to com- against Jesswunt Rao Holkar were issued by the gomand in Guzerat, inde- vernor-general in his own name, in conformity to the pendently of the autho- practice which has prevailed in this government during rity of the government of a long course of years. On reference to the proceed. Bombay ; and the orders ings of the governor-general in council in the secret 10 Gen. Wellesley to com- department, your honourable court will observe, that municate, at such time as since the accession of the Marquis Cornwallis to the he might think proper, to charge of this government in the year 1786, until the the government of Bom- appointment of the Marquis Wellesley, the correspon. bay, the resolutions for dence with the political agents, and frequently with commencing hostilities the military officers of the government, has been against Holkar. Paragraph conducted by the governor-general in his own name, 12.

and not in the name of the governor-general in 7th. That the letters council. from the government of " The governor-general in council is not aware that Bengal are addressed to your honourable court, at any period of time, has exthe court of directors in pressed your disapprobation of this mode of conductthe third person singular, ing these branches of the public correspondence. All instead of the first person other branches of the public correspondence have been plural. Paragraph 13. conducted, during the administration of the Marquis

Wellesley, in the ordinary manner, by letters signed by

the governor-general and the members of the supreme 1st. Separate corres- council, or by letters signed by the secretary to the pondence with the subor- government,' by order of the governor-general in dinate government.--Pa. council. sagraph 2 and 3.

“ The practice described in the second paragraph having so long prevailed in the political branch of the public correspondence, and having, apparently, received the sanction of your honourable court, the governor-general would have considered himself to be acting in perfect conformity to the wishes of your honourable court, if he adhered to this practice to the degree in which it was observed, during the admi. nistration of his two immediate predecessors.

“ But, by a reference to the proceedings of the secret department, your honourable court will observe, that, during the administration of the Marquis Wellesley, his lordship has not pursued this mode of correspondence with the uniformity observed under the two preceding administrations. On the contrary, the conduct of this branch of the correspondence of

the * Letter from the g vernor generalia council, dated May 20th, 1805.

(Signed) W'ELLESLEY,

G, H. BARLOW,

G. UDNY, • A 2

COURT'S DRAFT,
No. 128.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE COURT'S DRAFT,
No. 128.

the government has been gradually approximated more
nearly to the system which now appears to be deemed
more regular by your honourable court.

"The instructions to the political and military officers have seldom been signed by the Marquis Wellesley separately, (especially since the year 1799) excepting in cases in which the great importance of the subject, or the high official rank of the officer to whom the instructions were addressed, demanded that the instructions should be signed by the governorgeneral. Both these considerations necessarily operated with regard to all instructions addressed to the commander in chief. It is not consistent with the established usage of the government, nor with the forms of respect due to the commander in chief, as being a member of the government, that instructions to the commander in chief should be addressed to him under the signature of the secretary to the government. All instructions addressed personally to the commander in chief were accordingly signed by the governor-general. The same purposes, (as far as regarded the observance of forms, and of due respect to the commander in chief) would, undoubtedly, have been answered, if all these instructions had been signed by the governorgeneral, and the members of the supreme council; and this mode of issuing instructions to the commander in chief has been frequently observed. But this mode of issuing instructions, if generally adopted, would often have occasioned considerable delay in a crisis of the public affairs, when any protraction of the dispatch of instructions might have been fatal to the most important interests of the state. By issuing the instructions to the commander in chief, under the signature of the governor-general, established forms were observed, the evils of delay were obviated, and the respect due to the official situation of the commander in chief was maintained.

"Independently of the delay which must also have arisen in issuing all the instructions communicated to general Wellesley, under the signature of the governorgeneral, and the members of the supreme council, it would have been inconsistent with the established usages of the government, and with the subordinate official relation in which that officer stood towards the government, to have conducted all the correspondence with that officer under the signature of the governorgeneral and the members of the council. In special cases, and for special purposes, letters have been addressed to officers of the official rank of general Wellesley, and holding situations similar to the situation in which he was employed, under the signatures of the governor-general and the members of the council. But the usual channel of correspondence with officers of the rank of major-general Wellesley, and employed in situations similar to that of majorgeneral Wellesley, is the governor-general separately, or the secretary to the government. Your honourable court will accordingly find, that the correspondence with general Wellesley was ordinarily conducted

by