페이지 이미지
PDF

on the detail of events, which it will be convenient to pursue, that had produced the general discontent. Every where, as he goes along, he vindicates the proceedings of Sir G. Barlow, by the unqualified condemnation of the conduct of the army. He censures, in broad terms the act of petitioning or memorializing in bodies, inveighs generally against military combinations, condemning, without reserve, the meditated memorial to the governorgeneral, to which the order of the 1st May refers. He illustrates his statements, on every one of these topics, by allusions to the acknowledged principles of the British constitution, and genuine British feeling. If he had confined his labour here, though there might be some doctrines, and some illustrations attempted by him, that had more of splendour in them, than substance, none would have been much inclined to have excepted to his general propositions. But his lordship has not only conclusively pronounced in disfavour of the right of memorializing in the present instance, but has utterly denied the existence of any grievance as a cause of memorial in the army; and has endeavoured to sustain his assertion, by a minute examination of every one of the acts attributed to and affecting that body of men. These have already been described, in a general way, but it will be necessary to advert to them more particularly, that it may be seen whether the army were setting up, as it is alleged, ideal and visionary grievances, and whether the government was justified or not in the severe measures pursued for the suppression of military complaints. - The practice of memorializing in numbers, though it may not be strictly military, is not novel in point of fact. Numberless instances might be quoted where memorials have been forwarded to his majesty, and the court of directors, from the Indian army, or large bodies of officers attached to it, and

have not only been received in that form,

but have been wisely and formally attended to. An extraordinary paper of this sort was presented to the king,

by the Bengal army, then commanded by general Popham, in which his majesty was informed of the sufferings and sentiments of that branch of the service, and the redress which it expected, accompanied by a bold, if not menacing declaration, that the sufferers were 150,000 men, with arms in their hands, and with ability, at least, if not relieved by the beneficence of the sovereign, to enforce, by their own means, a redress of their grievances. The appeal was not thrown back on the appellants, neither was it without effect. On another, not less memorable occasion, the complaints of the united Indian army were received at the India house, and in Downing street, through the hands of acknowledged representatives and commissioners, chosen openly by their military constituents at the three presidencies. These representatives were treated with respect by Mr. Pitt, and they were admitted by that enlightened statesman to discuss and adjust the rights of those whom they represented. It is observable, also, in the papers laid upon the table of the House of Commons, that the court of directors have very recently thrown out something like disapprobation of the conduct of Sir G. Barlow, in not forwarding to the court the memorial of certain officers, complaining generally of the reduction of their advantages, which had been sent to the Madras government by general Macdowall, for transmissal to England. These are all in proof of the manner and extent of appeal in military matters. It appears, at all times, to have been permitted to the officers of the Indian army, in indulgence, if not in right, to make a joint representation of their wrongs to the constituted authorities, both at home and abroad. Convenience may have had much to do in the toleration of . the practice; aud, perhaps, a contrary course would be unsuited to the peculiar constitution and situation of the Indian army. Lord Minto himself seems to admit, if not directly, by the . tendency of his illustrations, the right of individuals to memorialize toge

ther, but not the right of officers to

give their joint memorial the denomination of an appeal from the whole army. This narrows the objection to the memorial under consideration to a question of form, rather than of substance. His lordship, forgetting that the paper is not complete, and that it is capable of revision and alteration, considers it as a finished composition, giving to all the parts of it a fixed and determinate meaning, without any reference to the general purport and context of the writing. He excepts, primarily, to its title, as bespeaking it to be a representation of the army at large : and this affords an occasion for his reprobation of the supposed end of the paper, which he conceives is “ to bring to the council board a clamorous demand, enforced by the combined and united voice of the army.” But if the title be exceptionable to the full, as it appeared to his lordship, the exception is only to the title, and might have been explained, and in reality removed by reference to the matter in the body which is the essence of the memoriai. This does not show that the persons, whoever they might be, who subscribed the memorial had, or pretended to have any commission or authority, from the army to represent its grievances ; and therefore, whatever erroneous title the tnemorial carried on its front, it could not in fact be considered as any thing more than the joint memorial of the persons subscribing it; and hence all the reasoning of lord Minto, on this score, would seem in fairness to be inapplicable and irrelevant. The tone and language of the memorial, considering it as having arrived maturely in the hands of the governorgeneral, but in which way it never came thither, is not certainly so respectful, or decorqus, as it might or should have been. But this will be more or less excusable from the reality or non-existence, as it shall eventually appear, of the alleged circumstances of complaint The governor-general, examining singly every one of the imagined grievances, declares them to be without solidity or foundation. These grievances are stated by him to be “the

exclusion of lieut.-general Macdowall from council ; the release of colonel Munro, and the removal of the adjutant and deputy-adjutant-general from their offices.” But are these the grievances actually preferred in the memorial, or are they misconceived and nuisrepresented by lord Minto ? and may not a great deal of his argument fai), as proceeding on this misconception of the premises : In respect to the exclusion of gon. Macdowall from the council, which his lordship places at the head of the represented grievances of the army, it may be observed, and it must be evident to every one who has given the intended memorial to the governor-general a patient and impartial consider: tion, that it is not set forth as a sulf stantire cause of complaint; nor is it hinted at in any other way than as a reason, by which they account, rightly or not, for the sufferings of the army. They “lament generally that although their claims, their duties, and their privileges are so multifarious, as to require the assistance of practical experience in discussit, the merits of them yet they have not a representative in the council of the government, where alone the discussion can be agitated ; “to this cause probably” (they say) “may be ascribed the recent measures, which have made it necessary for your memorialists to implore your gracious interposition.” And they continue “a succinct notice of those measures will amply develope the principles by which your memorialists estimate the injuries they have already received : and by the further abuse of authorities, which they have reason to apprehend.” They then immediately pass to the enumeration of the government measures, which constitute the sum of their representation. Is there any thing in this, like the assertion of a right in the a my to have a representative in council, and a consequent oppression in the exclusion of general Macdowall Is the circumstance ever stated as a positive cause of suffering ; or alluded to more than as the possible or probable source of the measures which have borne on the feelings of the army To

this cause probably (say they) with moderation and mode ty enough, maw be ascribed the recent measures which have made it necessary for the men.orialists, not to resist the government, but to “implore the gracious interposition of the governor-general.” The allusion might have been more ab-olute without any great excess either in duty or respect Whatever might be the demerits of the memorial, none certainly are inputable to it for pretending to rights incompatible with the condition of the subscribers to it, but appertaining unquestionably to his Majesty and the directors of the East India company, respecting the degree of political or military power to be possessed by the commander-in-chief. It might have been expected, therefore, of the candour of his lordship, that he should not have attempted to involve the subscribers to the memorial in arrogant, but imaginary pretensions to rights which are constitutionally and wisely vested in other and more fit organs. If his Lordship had viewed with an impartial eye the quoted passage in the memorial, he might have avoided half the labour of his letter, and all the pain which must result to an ingenuous mind, on reflection, front ascribing motives to men which they evidently did not feel, and where the imputation might have an injurious tendency, as here, in implicating and embroiling them with those authorities to which alone they could look, from the unhapPy event of things, for a fair consideration and just decision on their conduct. It has been shortly shewn, that the exclusion of the commander in chief from the council, was not alleged as a grievance in itself, but was lamented generally as the probable cause of the evils endured and anticipated by the army. This act was known to be the act of the government at home; while the memorial distinctly complained of the measures of the government abroad, ‘ a succinct notice of which, they "ale, will amply develope the princiPies by which they esonate the inju* already received; and which, by

the further abuse of prwer, they have reason to apprehend. It is the o joct of the memorial, thus explained, noso much to seek redress to what has pass, d, as to stay the further progress of injury : this is most explicitly declared towards the conclusion of the memorial. It is addressed also to an authority whose particular office it to controul the acts, if they shall seem unwise or injudicious, in the interior governments. So that the direction of the appeal was peculiarly correct. if the ground of it was substantial and the mode of representation void of of. fence. The negotive of the latt-r positions, is argued by the governor-go i.eral, who states the subject of the appeal, as has been shown, not altogether as it is, in respect to the leading head, and who denies the justice of it in all that it sets forth. The measures of the government, noticed in the memorial, and described by lord Minto, may be taken, with the exception particularised, on the statement of his lordship ; but with certain allowances. They appear to be, reduced in number and aggravation, the release of lieut. col Munro, and the removal fion) their offices of the adjutant and deputy-adjutant-general of the army; but each of these heads includes in it several inseparable and oppressive incidents. The release of colonel Munro does not relate to that individual only—but to the numerous officers o' corps who prepared charges against him, and relatively to the whole army, interested in the due administration of the military law. It colaterally concerns the character and the rights of the commander-in-chief. The removal of the adjutant, and depaty adjutant-general, is not the sum of the next offensive measure of

the government, as specified in the

memorial ; for they are suspended not only from their offices, but the service, and the avowed cause of their suspension, and the unanner of it, are more pointed at in the representation, than the act itself. These col siderations surely are not foreign to the army, for they might be made applicable to

[ocr errors]

every member of it, in an instant, by a sudden fancy of the executive. But these are very slightly considered, and explained by the governor-general, though the measures themselves are defended in the aggregate, on the footing of the false clamour of the memorialists. The release of colonel Munro is spoken of as an act of grace; but such a view of the act is confined to the case of the officer released ; not extended to the other parties, surely, and they were numerous, who had procured his arrest. It would be trifling to waste a word on so preposterous an assertion. But the release is approved, or rather excused, on graver reasons. It is stated, that colonel Munro was not a fit object of arrest, since he was an agent in the matters imputed to him, by way of charge, in the direct employment of the government, and within the letter of his commission ; for that his act, when perfected, had been adopted and approved by his employers. Whether this were true or not, there is no means of forming any accurate notion, unless the quarter - master - general's assertion is to be held, in a point of controversy, as decisive and unexaminable. But taking the act, in any construction, who is to judge of it? It is a military act, and the agent is a military agent. The persons complaining of it are all clothed with a military garb. The organ, cognizant of military offences,and instructed with the means of bringing them to punishment, would seen here, as in ordinary cases, to be the judge of the propriety, or impropriety, of the arrest, and the subsequent release;—and this organ is the king's commander-in-chief, for the time being, sole and uncontrolled. The arrest must have been preceded by a charge, alleging some breach of military custom or law, of which the comm and er-in-chief is to form his own judgment, and to award the first process, or not, as he sees occasion ; and it must be presumed, in favour of such office, that a fit foundation was laid for the arrest in this instance. The act of the con

mander-in-chief, it has been shewn in a preceding place, is not controllable within the sphere of his authority, and who, in the course of the administration of justice throughout the army, is as free from the constraint of the civil power, as the courts established by his majesty for the dispensation of the civil law to the community, not professing a military life. Any interference with this authority, within its proper bounds, must be deemed unlawful, and when affecting the rights of other parties, as much a resulting grievance to them as the more direct and open infringement of the lights of the commander-in-chief. Lord Minto admits, “ that the warrant to hold courts martial is addressed to the commander-in-chief, and he considers his authority exclusive in that branch of the public administration; but the abuse, he adds, of a legal power is illegal, and the supreme military controul of the governor in council extends, in his judgment, and beyond all doubt, to the prevention of such abuses.” This may be granted to the fullest latitude; but it will be asked, where the abuse of the commander-in-chief's authority is apparent 2–Has he brought a party within his power not subject to military command The act is admitted to have been done by a military officer, and in the course of his duty. In what is it suggested that the general has transgressed his legal province, so as to call for the controlling hand of the civil government It is said, that he has exercised a jurisdiction over an act, which may, or must, involve the government in the inquiry. But, if so, the common measure of justice must be meted out here, as in other instant es, without attention to remote consequences, without any squeamishness or overstrained delicacy about the conduct or character of the government, supposed to be inplicated in that enquiry. The law shows no courtesy to persons or to place; but if what it constitutes a crime be apparent, it will not be less so in its eye, that

the tiling has been done by the com

mand, or with the approbation of any authority, however exaled. If the sanction of the government could excuse an act, otherwise a crime, it must, at all times, be in the power of the government to draw the consideration of such act, whether it concerned the civil or the military agent, within its cognizance, and to oust the king's courts of law of all their jurisdiction over it. The absurdity of such a position is too manifest to require more than a simple statement: but if such a sanction could cover the agent from the legal consequences of the act, it must be necessary for him to plead, and to shew such circumstance in evidence, in justification or excuse; of the sufficiency of which, the civil or the martial courts, and those who are ultimately to approve the decision, must judge. It is not for he government to judge of the lawfulness of its own acts, to erect itself into a tribunal, to sit in judgment on its own conduct, to the mockery of the very idea of justice, and to the contempt of the established courts of the crown and the country. But the supposition, seriously insisted on by lord Minto, that the character of government could be affected, in an injurious manner, by the trial, or even the conviction, of lieut.colonel Munro, would seem to do more credit to his lordship's fancy and ingenuity, than to his judgment.-How is the thing supposed possible 2 by this complicated process : that the tent contract was abolished by the advice of colonel Munro, that his ad vice was suggested in the form of a report, and that the advice, as well as project, the abolition of the tent contract, had not nerely been approved, but applauded by Sir J. Cradock, commander-in-chief at Fort S.George, the government in council at the same place, by the commander-in-chief in India, and by the governor-general in council. He then concludes, ‘‘ to charge either the measure which had been adopted under these authorities, or the reasons upon which it was recommended, and which had been sanctioned and approved by the same authorities, as base and iniaiuous

crimes, was a studied insult offered by those officers (the ponies preferring the charges against colonel Munro,) and by lieut.-general M. Dowall who supported and co-operated with them, to every outhority, which it was their dots to respect.” Now if Sir J Cradock and the gove, nonent of Fort St. George, are to be presumed to have known any thing of the truth of the ficts stated in the report, it is clear that the commanderin-chief in India, and the governorgeneral, could, from their remote situation, have no knowledge whatever of the facts stated, so as to imagine themselves pledged for the truth of them, nor, in the common course of things, could the local commander-inchief, or the local government. The official eport of the quarter-mastergeneral, like the communication of any other officer, was received and acted on by the authorities enumerated, as a sateinent, primâ facie, to be credited, but without the force of binding the government, by their adoption of it, to the authenticity of the ruarters contained in that statement ; but leaving them a full opportunity to withdraw their approbation at a posterior period, if they should discover that the tacts, which the report assumes, be not as they are related. The approbation of all the authorities mentioned, is founded on the supposed veracity of the quarter-master-general's report : it implies not, however, any stipulation for its truth, nor could it make that true which is not so in point of fact. The imprisnatur of the government might go a great way; but it could not alter the very essence of things. It would, too, be doing the greatest injustice to the character of the Indian authorities, to give a countenance to the supposition of lord Minto, that they would not be r ady to retract their own act, if it should be requisite, and give up the guilty adviser o' it, if it should, at any time, be discovered, that it was bottomed, in injustice and falsehood, und r the imposition of an accredited agent. The character of the government would only be involved in sustaining

[ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »