manifested, so far as it might have been discovered, without the compromise of any leading principle of Government. Some

may think that such a spirit might have been shewn, without prejudice to authority, in allowing the proceedings against the Quarter Master General to take their due course; or possibly, that this favourite might have been abandoned, even, at a more advanced period of discontent, when it had been unequivocally understood, that his ministry was odious, and could not be further continued with advantage to his country. If the opinion of the public should be allowed to have any influence on the administration of civil affairs, it should not be neglected or contemned, it should seem, in the military state. Popular clamour is sometimes delusive, but popular feeling is seldom agitated to any great degree without real and singular causes. It is always most desirable, that the love and affection of the subject should go hand in hand with his duty. Our history is not without instances, where Majesty itself has yielded, in the surrender of its immediate servants, in deference to the voice of the people. It could surely have been of little

reproach to a secondary or derivative Government to have profited by the example.

At the time to which we now allude, no circumstance of much acerbity had arisen to prevent an early and an easy accommodation of differences. The commandants of corps, it will be recollected, did not object, nor could they reasonably have objected, to the act of Government, that deprived them of their tent allowances, nor did they remonstrate on the manner, which was not very gracious, by which that measure was effected. Their complaint, so

far as it had the most distant relation to the tent-contract, was bottomed on a part of the report of Lieutenant Colonel Munro, which was thought to be unfounded and calumnious, and which was regarded and treated as that gentleman's sole and undivided act. It is fit that this fact should be rightly and distinctly understood, as much misconception has been entertained of the origin of the discontents of the army, from want of information on this particular point. The abolition of the contract, it may be confidently said, formed no ingredient in the causes of the temporary disaffection towards the Government. The report alone was

supposed to be injurious and adverse to the interests of the army, and it was on that account resented. Whether a just or erroneous opinion was conceived of it, we are not now disposed to enquire. It is to be lamented, that the merits, or demerits of this paper, and the matters connected with it, were not submitted to the determination of a forum, peculiarly fitted to decide on the subject; and when such decision, most probably, would have been the means of averting all the unfortunate occurrences that subsequently happened.

But the complaints of the Commandants of Corps were treated with disregard, and the right of constitutional appeal to the Court of Directors, was denied by the Government, by a positive refusal to transmit their Memorial, complaining of grievances, through the customary channel. This extraordinary proceeding was followed by the orders of the 31st of January and 1st of February. The suspension of the Adjutant and Deputy Adjutant General greatly increased the discontent, as the principle, asserted in the act, was not partial but universal, and might be extended, at will, to every component part of the army.

N

that the chief of the army staff are deprived of their offices, and suspended from their station in the army, on the sole and avowed ground of their having paid an unqualified obedience to the orders of their Commander in Chief? Is it a matter foreign to the feelings of an officer, to perceive his brethren arbitrarily put beyond the pale of the army without enquiry, and without a hearing? Is it of no annoyance to them, in holding a commission, rendered insecure, not only by its being subject to be seized on some military impeachment or insinuation, but that it shall be exposed to suspension, at the whim or caprice of power, for alleged reasons, unconnected with military measures? Is it of no importance, that officers, having leave to quit the company's possessions, from infirmity or the urgency of their private affairs, should be detained in India against their will, from vain and capricious motives of men in power; and be dismissed at length, without explanation, to pursue their original destination; whilst others of high rank and character, should be hurried with ignominy, and almost under the degrading circumstances of felons, though without a verdict or judgment, beyond the

company's confines, and finally to England, contrary to their declared wishes, and in direct and express violation of their interests? If these things have happened, and none can seriously dispute the facts, have we occasion to look around us for reasons for the irritated feelings of the coast army? Some of the circumstances, embraced by these questions, may be partially controverted or qualified, but the greater part of them are admitted by the official documents of the local Government, though an endeavour is made to disguise them by a false glare of colouring, or to contravene them by sophisticated argument. A sufficient answer has been given, we apprehend, to these ingenious artifices, in the correspondence that has foregone.

The inflamed sensations of parties were further aggravated by matters, which, under other circumstances, would have passed unheeded. We shall not here pause to add any new article to the long catalogue of offence, which we have hastily ran over.

It hardly will be denied that there was not much irritable matter, lurking under the obnoxious acts enumerated, which, if it should at any time find vent, would produce the