and he did not think it right for the house to interpose.

Mr. Freemantle supported the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer conceived, that if this resolution was adopted, the question would not be left in that unprejudiced state which was, on all hands, allowed to be desirable. It was impossible the honourable baronet could have any other intention than that of prejudicing it when he framed that resolution. If adopted, the house should go farther than giving to the directors a mere opinion; they should tell them to exclude from their books the resolution which they had found necessary to adopt, and, in fact, the house should make bye-laws for them. If the house should refuse to give their accord or dissent to this measure, it would be much better, and less prejudiced.

Sir S. Romilly was surprised to hear austere sentiments of justice from the opposite side of the house. They should recollect what they had done in the case of a secretary of state, for whom they conceived there may be a locus penitentiæ; and also the indulgence given to Peachum Hill, though proved to receive br bes, before they would proceed to adopt such a measure of severity, as the recal of young men, over whom the shield had not been thrown.

The Attorney General believed, that the arguments of his honourable and learned friend were made use of for the purpose of introducing his closing reflection (Hear, hear!). The power of the directors was admitted on all hands, as to execute what they considered advantageous to their concerns. But would not this resolution convey an intimation to the directors, that they should act from the impulse of their own sentiments? Upon the

whole, this resolution would go farther, perhaps, than was even intended by the honourable mover.

Mr. P. Moore defended the motion, conceiving that the matter ought not to go any farther, which it would do, without parliamentary interference. Nothing could be more unjust than to visit the sins of the father upon the children, which would unquestionably be the case, if the severe resolution of the court of directors should be persisted in.

Mr. Lushington supported the previous question. An interference with the directors of the East India company, such as that now proposed, was, in his opinion, by no means justifiable.

Mr. Hutchinson argued, that if the house negatived the proposition of the honourable baronet, they would act in direct opposition to the tendency of their conduct during the whole of the present session. He gave the motion his decided support.

Mr. H. Smith maintained the expediency of coming to the previous question on the motion before the house.

Mr. N. Vansittart hoped the court of directors would reconsider their determination to recal the persons alluded to.

Mr. H. Thornton expressed his opinion, that the proposed resolution was unnecessary. From what had been stated by the honourable chairman of the court of directors, it appeared, that it was not intended to enforce their determination with the severity supposed by the honourable baronet.

Sir T. Turton made an animated reply to the arguments which had been urged against his motion.

The house then divided,
For the previous question.... 77
Against it.

35

Majority.. 42

Fort St. George-Military Department. No. 1. GENERAL LETTER, 29th January 1809.

To the Honourable the Court of Directors for Affairs of the Honourable the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies.

Honourable Sirs,

YOUR honourable court have been already informed that lieutenant-general Hay Macdowall had intimated his intention of resigning the command of the army of this presidency, and of procceding to England.

2.-Lieutenant-general Macdowall having addressed to us a letter, explaining the circumstances which have led to his resignation, we have the honour to forward a copy of that letter to your honourable court.

3-It would not be consistent with our duty to discuss in this dispatch the question, whether it may be adviseable, or otherwise, that the commander-in-chief at Fort St. George should have a seat in council; but we can have no hesitation in stating, that we consider the sentiments expressed by lieutenant-general Macdowall, relative to the nature of the duties of the commander-in-chief, to be erroneous; and above all, we must consider the supposition of the commander-inchief, being viewed in the light of a " representative" of the army, to be unconstitutional aud radically inconsistent with the established principles of the British government in this

country.

4.We shall not deem it necessary to submit any explanation on the other points adverted to in a letter of the commander-inchief, unless your honourable court should require farther explanation.

5.-We are concerned to bring under the attention of your honourable court, a circumstance which has occasioned considerable embarrassment to this government, and extreme injury to the established order of the public service.

6.-Your honourable court are aware that one of the most essential objects of reduction, which was effected on the late revision of the

military expenditure of this presidency, was the discontinuance of the Tent contract; a measure calculated to effect a great public saving, and to give an encreased degree of efficiency to the department of camp equipage.

7.-On reference to the papers which were brought under the attention of your honourable court with the letter of this government, dated on 21st October, 1807, you will have perceived that the discontinuance of the tent contract was founded on a suggestion of the quarter-master-general, who having been called upon in a confidential communication from the late commander-in-chief, Sir John Cradock, for his sentiments, stated his opinion regarding the operation of the tent contract in a very intelligent and able report. This paper was laid by the late commanderin-chief before the government, in a minute, dated 30th June 1807; and Sir John Cradock at the same time expressed his entire concurrence in the conclusions drawn by the quarter-master-general, stating that they were the result of their joint reflection upon the subject.

8.-The proposed measure of annulling the tent contract having been fully considered by this government, was approved and recom mended to the supreme government, who, after expressing entire concurrepce in the opini ons which had been stated, desired that the measure should be carried into effect.

In pro

9.-The orders for the abolition of the tent contract were published in the month of May last, and the system of supplying the camp equipage of the army, under the direc tion of the officers of the Government, has been accordingly carried into effect. portion, however, as the improved system has been been beneficial for the public interests, it has been adverse to the interests of individual officers, as the advantages, derived by the officers commanding Native corps under the operation of the contract, were considerable; and the effect has been, that, aided by collateral circumstances, the adoption of the improved system bas excited in the army of

this presidency a great degree of clamour.

10. We have stated the circumstances under which the suggestion on this subject was submitted by the quarter-master-general of the army, and this officer having been in consequence chosen as the object of obloquy, certain officers, commanding Native corps proceeded to the extremity of preferring direct charges against him, on the grounds of the opinion which he had stated in his official capacity, and conveyed under the sanction of a confidential communication to the late commander-in-chief.

11.-It is proper to state to your honourable court, that lieutenant-colonel Munro, the Quarter-master-general of the army, is an officer of great merit and talents. He has, for a long period of time, filled the principal military staff situations at the presidency; and it is probable that his reports on various subjects of military arrangements will have attracted your observation, from the degree of perspicuity and ability by which they are distinguished. It is on the suggestion of lieutenant-colonel Munro, that a great part of the improvements lately effected in our military establishment have originated, and we are justified in stating to your honourable court, that we consider the services of that officer to have been of the greatest value and import

ance.

12. The charges against the quarter-master-general of the army, to which we have adverted, were, we understand, forwarded to the head-quarters of the army, about three months ago; and though we were not uninformed of this fact, we concluded that due means would be taken by the commander-inchief to suppress such factious proceedings, and we did not doubt that the quarter-mastergeneral would receive the protection which, in common with every public officer who is faithful in the fulfilment of his duty, he had an undoubted right to expect.

13.-In these circumstances we received within these few days, with great surprise, a letter from lieutenant-colonel Munro, stating that he had been ordered in arrest by the commander-in-chief on the ground of the charges in question, and calling our attention to the extraordinary situation in which he was placed by this measure, and to the probable effect which it would have by bringing under trial the public measures of the government. The letter of lieutenant-colonel Munro contains so forcible and true an appeal, regarding the general consequence of the measure, that we request your particular reference to that

proved and adopted in the most public and formal manner. We were, therefore, called upon to state, that we could never give our concurrence to the exposure of a public officer to obloquy and degradation, for opinions expressed by him in the fulfilment of his public duty, approved and confirmed as those opinions had been by every competent autho

rity.

15.-It was stated to the commander-inchief, that we had looked in vain for any just cause of complaint, that it might be possible, by any construction, to attach to the opinions conveyed in the report of the quarter-master-general, and that this consideration must add to the weight of public obligation imposed on this government, to give its firmest support to an officer against whom no other charge was apparently imputable, than that arising from the faithful and conscientious performance of his public trust.

16.-It being impossible that the conduct, of lieutenant-colonel Munro could be submitted to the cognizance of a court-martial, on the charges which had been preferred, without involving a discussion and trial of the public measures of the late commanderin-chief of the government of Fort St, George, as also of the supreme government; we had a right to have expected a previous communication from the command der-in-chief on this important question; and could not but deeply fell the sentiments derogatory to the character and authority of the government, which had been expressed by the commander-in-chief in a part of the papers connected with the measure under consideration. The commander-inchief was however informed, that we were disposed to waive all considerations of that nature, and our views being solely directed to the means best calculated to preserve the foundations of public confidence and of public authority, our communication was li mited to an earnest recommendation, that lieutenant-colonel Munro should be released from the arrest to which he had been subjected.

17. We had, previously to addressing the above letter to the commander-in-chief, required the opinion of the advocate general, as to the validity which could be considered to be attached to charges preferred under the circumstances which we have stated, and the course which it might be competent to the government to adopt. We desired the advocate general to commu. nicate with lieutenant-colonel Leith, the judge advocate general, on the question.

18. The report of the advocate general was clear and conclusive. He stated, that lieutenant-colonel Munro had been bound, by every legal tie and public obligation, to advise the question on which his opinion had been required, according to his conscience, and the best of his judgment; that if the advisers of any public authority were

to be amenable to the individuals affected by the advice given, no man could do his public duty with safety; that the opinion given by the quarter-master-general, had been entirely founded on general reasoning, and had no reference to any individual character; and finally, that lieutenant-colonel Munro was entitled to the decided support and protection of the authorities under which he acted, to prevent his being brought to trial on the charges preferred against him.

19. The advocate general concluded his report by stating, that he had no doubt of the right of the government to interpose its authority, if necessary, by discharging lieutenant-colonel Munro from arrest, or by adopting such other measures as the exi gency of the case might require.

20.-The advocate general, with the concurrence of the judge advocate general, laid before us a copy of a letter which lieutenantcolonel Leith had addressed to the adjutantgeneral, when called upon at the desire of the commander-in-chief to state his opinion regarding the charges which had been adduced. The question was discussed in that paper with great knowledge and ability, and in a manner impressive of conviction, as to the accuracy of the grounds on which the conclusions drawn by lieut.-col. Leith were founded. The result of these conclusions was, that the charges were of an illegal nature, and that it would be unjust and improper that the conduct of lieutenant-colonel Munro should be submitted to the cognizance of a court-martial.

21.-We confess that we entertained considerable surprise, that the commander-inchief should, after so clear and decided an opinion had been stated by his principal legal adviser, have resorted to the extreme measure of ordering the quarter mastergeneral under arrest. Having however conveyed to the commander-in chief the explanation of our sentiments, in the manner in which we have stated, fortified as that explanation was by the strongest legal authorities, we could entertain no doubt of a compliance with our recommendation for the removal of the arrest, a recommendation founded on the clearest principles of public order and justice.

22. In this expectation however we were disappointed, the commander-in-chief having refused to release lienten int colonel Munro from arrest, and having even stated his intention of ordering an additional charge to be preferred against that officer, on the ground of his having submitted an appeal to the government, withour which appeal, it is proper to observe, that we should have had no authentic information of the circumstances of the case, until the conduct of lieutenant-colonel Munro, and with it the proceedings and orders of the government, had been brought before a military

tribunal for decision.

23 -We could not also but feel, that the

whole of this proceeding was extremely aggravated, by the circumstance of the commander-in-chief having withheld all acknowledgment for the very offensive expressions used towards the government, in a letter addressed by the commander-in-chief to the quarter-master general, and which formed one of the documents submitted, with the reference of that officer.

24- We know not what measure it might have been our duty to have adopted under such circumstances. But after mature consideration, we determined to make known to the commander-in-chief, that we considered the terms of our recommendation, regarding the removal of the arrest, to be equiva lent to an order, and we requested to be informed if it was the commander in chief's intention to decline a compliance with the requisition under that explanation.

25. This led to a farther letter from the commander-in-chief, in which he expressed himself prepared to conform to an order for the removal of the arrest; but he protested` against the measure, on the grounds stated in the letter to which we refer,

26. In the view which we have explained of this case, we could not hesitate to enforce the authority, which we considered ourseives to have been legally entitled to exercise, under circumstances of such extraordinary emergency, and we accordingly directed that lieutenant-colonel Munro should be released from his arrest.

27.-We should not in ordinary circumstances have adopted a measure of this nature, but we are satisfied that a more fatal shock to the public authority could not have been experienced, than in permitt ing the charges which had been preferred by the commander-in-chief against heutenant-colonel Munto to be brought under the investigation of a court-martial. This measure would have involved in its immediate effect, under circumstances of the most offensive nature, the degradation of the public acts and character of the government, the annihilation of all confidence on the part of its public officers, ant the utter confusion of the departments under its authority.

28.-With regard to the individual merits of the question, the circumstance of permitting a meritorious officer to be brought to trial for the correct and able performance of a duty imposed on him by his superiors, must have been repugnant to every feeling of honour, and every principle of justice. Being satisfied that every praise, and not censure, was due to cutenant colonel Munro, that officer had an unquestionable right to look for protection against the act of injury to which he had became exposed, in the zealous and honourable execution of the duties of his station..

29 - We should exhaust the patience of your honourable court. in stating the lengthened arguments which occurred on this important question; but in referring