The Sun.
London, England, 1849-09-27 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE

A quarterly general Court of the Proprietors of
East India Stock was held yesterday at the East
India House; Sir Archibald Galloway in the chair.
The minutes of the last meeting having been read
and confirmed,
The CHAIRMAN announced that the Court of Di-
rectors had received a dispatch from the Marquis of
Dalhousie acknowledging the vote of thanks awarded
to his Lordship at a former Court of Proprietors.
Mr. MALCOLM LEWIN, pursuant to notice, then
brought the following facts under the consideration of
the proprietors, which would show that a great
offence had been committed by the military authori-
ties of Madras, under the form of a judicial proceed-
ing—an offence which calls for the condign punish-
ment of its guilty authors. The facts were thus
briefly stated :—Seventeen soldiers of the 6th Regi-
ment Madras Light Cavalry were placed on their
trial, charged with mutiny, of whom two were shot,
one acquitted, thirteen banished for life, and one
pardoned on the following grounds (as recorded in the
order of the Marquis of Tweeddale, the Commander-
in-Chief)—" I pardon private Mahomed Waz:er. I
believe what he states in his defence, that the cause
of his appearing forward in those mutinous
proceedings was his having been desired by Jema-
dar Sheik Ibrahim to obtain information of what was
going on amongst the Sepoys of the Regiment." The
mutiny orginated in an order of the Government to
withhold from the Sepoys their accustomed stipends,
which, it was alleged, originated in a mistake. No
one, however, has been called to account for a
mistake so utterly indefensible. The effects of the
mistake, which are appealed to in the defence of the
prisoners, had been to paralyze the regiment (which
was just ordered on field service), and to bring
distress and destitution on the men and their families.
It had reduced to desperation the Sepoys, who
refused to saddle their horses—a state of things which
continued for four days, when on the arrival
of the division officer, General Watson, the com-
plaints of the men having been listened to (to
all of which the commander of the regiment had
turned a deaf ear), and the pay restored, the men
"returned to their duty." This end being accom-
plished, the Commander-in-Chief, through his Deputy
Adjutant-General, addressed the commander of the
regiment as follows :—" The Commander-in-Chief has
received the Brigadier's (Watson) letter of the 10th
of December, with Major Lichfield's (the commander
of the regiment) of the Bth of December, enclosed.
The Commander in-Chief is happy to understand
from these communications that the men of the 6th
Light Cavalry have returned to their duty, and that
they appear to be sensible of their late misconduct.
But as his Lordship cannot allow the regiment, under
the reproach of such unworthy and unsoldierlike beha-
. viour, to continue at a station where it might be re-
quired for employment on actual service, he has
ordered it to be sent into cantonment at Arcot." It
will be thought by some that the return of the men
to duty, on the cause of discontent being removed,
would have furnished a sufficient plea for overlooking
their offence, and that the Government, whose mis-
conduct had created it, would have been gratified to
find an excuse for rescuing from disgrace and punish-
ment a regiment whose previous services and good
conduct had acquired for it a high character and
standing in the army, and whose error, at the worst,
was the result of circumstances which were capable
of trying the fi lelity of the best affected.
But it was as necessary in this case as in
the case of the Judges of the Sud,lr Court, to
find a cause against the injured, as the only means
whereby the real delinquent could be screened. It
was supposed, both within and without the regiment,
that the latter of the Deputy Adjutant• General had
closed the affair and consigned it to oblivion. Put
any other construction upon it, and it becomes illegal;
the Commander-in- Chief was not justified in passing a
reprimand on the regiment, if he meditated ulterior
measures against it, nor is it reasonable in belief that
the men would have continued, many months after-
wards, in a state of quiet and discipline, if
they had known that measure of punish-
ment awaited them on reaching cantonments.
Be this as it miy, the regiment, fin- four months
niter the letter of the Deputy Adjutant-General had
been read on parade, guarded the frontier ; and
during a period of nine months (before proceedings
were held against them), the men performed their
duty as good soldiers (guarding over the tent of the
Commander, who afterwards appeared against them
as prosecutor), perfectly unconscious of the plot
which was hatching against them. Placing the men
oe their trial after what had happened, was
soot only in contravention of numerous prece-
dents (too well known to need recital), but
in direct opposition to a recent dscision of Lord
Gough, the Commaleler-in•Chief of the army of India.
The question in a legal sense was of less importance
then in a moral point of view : the mind recoils with
horror from the fact that the alit of the men, who
were afterwards executed by the Government, was
rec-ieed for four months to guard the frontier; that
the Gev:rnineeit availed themselves of their services
for nine months, while nieditating their destructien.
'Uwe men were shot, and thirteen banished for life,
for %,1 offence committed nine months before a charge
ay.is preferred against them; that, tio, after the
ofTence had been fbrmilly overlooked, and at a time
when the regiment was ins a state of perfect discipline,
end when discipline prevailed throughout the army.
Taking the lives of the men was not justified by any
necessity ; even the plea of the tyrant expediency
does not avail; the facts disclose a wanton exercise of
power, for which there is neither palliation nor
excuse. As a legal question, the shooting
of tha Sepoys was without the sanction of
law; they were tried, corarn non judice, by a
court (wlich required thirteen members), com-
posed of no more than seven, a junior major being
president of a court appointed to try an issue
affecting the lives of seventeen of his fellow-creatures.
The prisoners had not the advantage of counsel
learned in the law to plead in their defence. With
this advantage it is incredible that any of them should
have been found guilty. The special court, held at
.Arcot, preliminary to the court martial, had vitiated
the whole case for the prosecution), and filled it with
rottenness. It is not going too far to say, that the
evidence obtained by the means resorted to would not
have been received in any court of justice. The
principal witness used by the Special Court and sub-
sequently on the court-martial, was, within a year of
the trial, dismissed from his rank as a commissioned
°Meer (to which he had been promoted for his
Services at the trial) for falsehood! and within
the last six months he has undergone the sen-
tence of a court-martial for a similar offence !
The real question is, whether the Sepoys were liable
to be tried at all, after the letter of the Deputy
Adjutant General ; after they had done duty for nine
month; ; and after they had been reprimanded, and
their offence formally overlooked. This is the real
question, which does not so much depend upon a
doubtful construction of law as upon facts ; the result
of which it does not require the penetration of a
counsel learned in the law to disclose. When the
Government broke its contract with the Sepoys it ,
virtually absolved them from the obligation of service.
Ths Mutiny Act, which engages the services of
the soldier, guarantees the payment of those
services. Is it the weaker party only
that is bound by a contract ? The Sepoy
committed no violence; he complained that his pay
was taken away; he clamoured for fond for himself,
his wife' and his children ; for a habitation from which
they had been driven, when at a distance of a thou-
sand miles from their proper homes ; he called upon
his commanding officer to hear his complaints, and
was rudely repulsed. When his complaints were
listened to, and his pay restored, instantly he gave his
services and "returned to duty." It is not to be
_ .

understood that the men were at any time unwilling
to perform the services of the Government; the conduct

of the Government had deprived them of the power.
Ire concluded by moving the following resolution :
" That the Court of Directors be requested to take
such measures as may be necessary to instruct the
local governments of India to insert in the Articles
of NVar for the native army a clause conveying the
same privilege to the native army of demanding
copies of tha record as is now enjoyed by the
European soldiery under the Articles of War framed
by the British Legislature on the 4th Oct., 1848."
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the motion, and insisted
that the whole proceedings of the court-martial were
illegal and unjust. It was quite clear, he said, that
there was one law for the British and another for the
native soldier in the service of the company, and it
Was, therefore, imperatively necessary that this Court
should withhold its sanction to the course pursued by
Lord Tweeddale.
The CHAIRMAN deprecated the introduction of
questions like this, as it could be productive of no
good results, but, on the contrary, might have the
effect of producing disaffection in the army in India.
It was not necessary for him to go into the facts of
this case, but he believed that the course which Lord
Tweeddile had pursued was wise, just, and equitable
in cvc ry respect, and he hoped that after this discus-
sion there would be an end to this matter.

Mr. FIELD2R would not impute sinister motives to
the mover and seconder of this resolntion, but he did
hope and trust that where it was shown that a court-
martial had acted with perfect legality, as appeared to
In the else in this instance, there would be no
interference with the conclusions it had arrived at,
He called, therefore, upon the Court to negative this
resolution, and set the matter at rest for ever.
Major BRIGGS gave it as his opinion that, by law,
the native soldiery had a right to a copy of the pro-
ceediags of court martials before whom they had been
tried, and should therefore support the motion.
The CIIIIRLIAN said the Honourable Proprietor's
view of the law was erroneous.
Major BRIGGi contended that the execution of the
men referred to by the mover of this resolution was a
direct violation of the existing law, inasmuch a the