the orders on the subject had been prepared without his previous opinion respecting them, and that, as the matter was so far advanced, he deemed it inexpedient to agitate it.

This occurred about July or August, and it was then expected that Lieutenant Colonel Munro, if he did not wish the stigma to remain against the officers of the army, would have addressed the Government, or the Commander in Chief, disavowing the intention imputed to his words, and desiring that such disavowal might be published for the satisfaction of those who felt injured. But, on the contrary, no such public disavowal has ever been made, nor was explanation of any kind given, until after charges had been forwarded against Lieutenant Colonel Munro, and after a sense of mutual danger had united in the same interest, not only those who signed the charges, but all who disapproved of Lieutenant Colonel Munro's conduct. His usurpation of the duties of every department had occasioned much complaint, and as the Government gave unqualified support to him, and communicated only with him, the army gradually confederated together.

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 Lieutenant Colonel Munro, hoping, by a public investigation of the merits of the case, to establish a complete refutation of the stigma cast on them. These charges were forwarded to General Macdowall, with a letter; the charges having been previously signed by a large proportion of officers commanding corps, and the letter by three; viz. Lieutenant Colonels Sentleger, Rumley, and Martin.

The charges were referred to the Judge Advocate General, who stated objections against the manner and matter of the charges. These objections were, by order of the Commander in Chief, communicated to the officers who had sent in the charges.

This opinion of Lieutenant Colonel Leith having been circulated with much industry all over India, it

may be proper to examine it. The following remarks will

shew, that his assumed principle is perfectly

*Lieutenant Colonel Leith.

erroneous, and consequently that his whole argument, both as it regards the law of libel and the impunity of official persons, falls to the ground. The Judge Advocate General states, "the following is under"stood to be the offensive passage:Thirdly, by granting the same allowance "in peace and war, &c." And again he "It is to be considered in what capacity the words were spoken; they were given as a general principle for establish"ing certain laws for the government of a community."

says,

If these sentences, as quoted, were expressive of matter of fact,-in short, if they were true, the conclusion which Lieutenant Colonel Leith has drawn would be decisive of the question; but the fact is otherwise.

The offensive part of Lieutenant Colonel Munro's paper should be stated thus: "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 introduc

"tion, and an attentive examination of its operation during that period of time, has suggested the following the following observations regarding it.

66

66

"First, The existing system, &c. "Secondly,-That system incurs an expense, &c. Thirdly,-By granting the "same allowance 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, fur"nishes strong inducements to neglect their "most important duties."

Now, notwithstanding the opinion of the Judge Advocate General, every man, capable of simple apprehension, must perceive, that the author of the paragraph above, correctly quoted, intended to express, that the subject of this third observation, as well as of the other observations, (six in number) was discovered by him through means that could not be in the possession of

the persons who proposed the introduction of the contract system in the year 1801-2. The observation is not introduced as a general maxim; it is expressed as applicable to some practical illustration of the crimes specified, that had occurred within the six years to which the introduction alludes. And, indeed, one can hardly suppose, that the imagination of any individual would spontaneously suggest a crime so base, as that of an officer keeping back 1000 soldiers from doing the duty of his country, for the sake of a pecuniary advantage, which, under any system of corruption, could not be great. If Lieut.-Colonels Leith and Munro conceive the officers of the army to be capable of a crime, so heinous against their country, against the character of their profession, and against every principle of honor and honesty, it may be considered fortunate for those gentlemen, that their intercourse, with the officers of the army, is very limited. They must, while in their company, be under perpetual apprehension of meeting the comparatively trifling crime of theft.

This exposition must, in every reasonable mind, remove the impressions which Colonel Leith's opinion is of itself caleu