The Sun.
London, England, 1810-01-09 00:00:00

LWJ?L .

LETTER FROM LORD miNTo AND THE oTHET, 911,.:M-
-BEits 'OF: THE BENGAL pitESiDENCY, TO ,SIR
GEORGE BABLow.
,
• [Cncluded from Friday's Paper.l
44.
,The next complaint is the release of Liente-
nsnt-Colonel Munro. . .
45. When an army steps so far aside from 'the
path of its proper and legitimate duties, as to be-
come the instrument of party, to znix, in po'litical
views, and to undertake the removal of Governors
or Ministers, we should have expeCted that ally.
grievance they should adduce in support of a pro-
ceeding so foreign to their own character, should,
consist„ at leasteiresome act of grievance and intole-
rable oppression. The measure which is the sub-
ject of this complaint is, on the contrary, an act of
grace and justice. . It is not the unjust arrest of any
Officer for purposes of oppression and vengeance,
but it is the relief of an Officer, amongst the most
respected in the army, from the most tyrannical and
detestable abuse of power by which an innocent
and highly meritorious individual was ever oppressed.
46. We shall ever consider the prosecution, of
Colonel Munro, and the part which Lieutenant-Ge-
neral Macdowall bore in that transaCtron; as eels of
extreme injustice, so far as they relate to the indivi-
dual who was the subjeet of them. But these. Inca--
sures were not less culpable in other points of view.
Both the advice which Lieutenant-COlonel Munro
gave to abolish the Tent Contrad, which we con-
sider as the real obje& of the proceeding ; and the
Memorial conveying that advice, a few lines in
which
.were made, without any imaginable founda-,
tiou, the ostensible, ground of the charges preferred
against him, had been, not merely approved, but ap-
Rlauded by every authority to which they could offi-
cially be submitted ; by Sir J., Cradock, Commander
in. Chief of the army of which the accusers of Co-
lonel Munro are officers; by the Governor and
Council of Fort St. George, who hold the 'Su-
preme Military authority under whieh those officers
served; by the Commander in Chief in India, to
whom, as officers, they owed implicit reverence and
respeol ; and, laStly,, by the Governor General in
Council, the Supreme and highest British authority in
the East. ' To charge either the measure which had
been adopted under these authorities, or the reasons
upon which it. was recommended, and which had
been sane-boned and approyed by the same authorie
ties, as " base and infamous crimes," was a studied
insult offered
.by those officers, and by
,Lieut.-Gee
neral Macdowalle. who supported and co-operated
with them, to every authority which it was their
elutY to respeti. This proceeding' aimed also dis-
tinetly at withdrawing the management and direc-
tion of all military arrangement, regarding the re-
gulation and economy of the army, from .the legal
authority of Government, in order to place, it in
the shape of Courts Martial, under the direction of
the officers of the army themselves. Lieutenant-
Colonel Munro was the nominal culprit, and the
articles were to bear the absurd, and, for that 'rea-
son we must believe, the collusive and pretended
accusation against him of calumny and gander ; but
•the Tent Contra% or rather its abolition, was in ef-
feet to be the subjeet, for no other substantial sub-
jeEt existed, of the trial.
47. We should indeed have been su. prised, as well
as concerned, if any considerable part of the Coast
Army had been prevailed upon to stain the pure
*and honourable charscter of their profession, by
lending their countenance in any shape, or M any
stage, tO a proceeding stamped as this prosecution
was with injustice ate' oppression, and fieunded in
such motives as all the cirumstances conspire to in-
dicate.
48.. But it is said, Colonel Munro was only to be
tried, and if innocent, would have been acquitted—
yet the Memorialists themselves allege that he we s
already condemned—" ha% ing incurred the suspi-
cion of having anted in a manner that was most- ge-
nerally considered to have been criminal."—" Hav-
ing incurred the suspicion," are mere words of form.
The meaning of the passage is a positive assertion
that Lietitenant-Colonel Munro had acted in a.man-
ner that was most generally considered to have been
criminal—We assume this to be the meaning of the
passage, because there was no question concerning
the feels. , . .
49. It is difficult to imagine, that such a charge as
'that which was preferred against Lieutenant-Colo-
nel Munro, should have rested only On vague re-
port, and that the officers whcesigned should not
;have used all the means in their power to obtain the
.perusal of a paper'on which they meant to found an
accusation of libel. We must, therefore, presume,
that the Memorial on the Tent Contra& was in the
hands of those who charged its author with defama-
tion. From that Memorial, therefore, never denied
nor disavowed by Lieutenant-ColOnel Munro, and
capable of certain and easy prOof, is to be 'collected—
"the Manner in what he had acted," and- - if that
',twiner of- acing was already most generally -ac-
counted criminal, sentence 'was already - passed, so
* far as faith can be given to the Memorial intended
to be Trehented to this Government. We trust,
however, more in the honour of -the army than in
the party feelings of the Memorialiste, and-we hope
,they were ;tob—sarignine in their expeelations of so
siojust a , sentence. ' But' although the acquittal
• of Lieutenant-Colonel Munro must 'be ' supposed
' possible, it was not fit that such ae officer should
be brought to the bar as a criminal for his honest ser-
vices; lt was not fit that the mode'of providing car-
rive for the camp equipage' of -the army, approved
e
and adopted as it' had been by all the legal autho-
rities in India, should be appealed. from those .au-
thorities . to a board of Officers. It was not fit tlik‘
this first *step should pass'without opposition, in the
process of usurping the regulation of the army from
GovernMent ,to the .Officers of the army. It was
not, becoming that the Supreme Government, the
Cornmander in Chief of India,. the GoVernment of
Fort St. George, and the late Commander in Chief
of that Presidency, Sir J. Cradock,'should hold up,
their hands as culprits before a tribunal of officers
sitting in judgment upun the deliberate measures of
their Governments.
•- 50. The whole proceeding was monstrous, and
' we repeat, in the stroogest terms, our warmest ap-
probation of your just, legal, ;and indispensable in-
terpoeition on that occasion, to vindicate the honour
of your. Government, and, tb shield one of your hest.
. and ablest' servants frorn an arbitrary and oppressive'
abuse of power. If you had Omitted to do so, you

. . -
would have faile I in them- osi acted- d—tu your
high station,
,and would have merited, because yon
would have sanetioned,' that 'long of ins!
encroachment Which was to ,follOW, rend of vi,Licit
the' prosecution of Lieatenant Colonel NI anro
have proved, to be'only the, first ek; eritnental.sten. .
51. It admitted that the warrant to lioldto:tt t.
Martial is addressed to the Commander in Chief; ',41,i1
we deem his authority exclusive in that branch of
the public Administration., But the, ahus,e of a is ii
power is illegal ; and. the supreme military cootroul-
of the Governor in Council tenth, in our jUdgment,
and beyond doubt, to the prevention of such
abuses: This does not suppose an habitual and in-
discriminate interference. We assert. only tor the
Government of Fort Sr. George, a right'and a le;al`
power to come, in extraordinary cases,' to fthe.sup-
port of their own authority, and against seditious en-
croachments combined
.with the oppression of inno-
cent men, by a gross , abuse of the power confided
to the Commander in Chief, in the'direaion of Mir 7
litary,prosecutionS.
52. If this ()pillion were wrong, there, are higher
authorities, who have power to pronounce it er-
roneous, and to provide another remedy ; which in,
that case would be necessary, for the evil supposed.
53. In the mean while your opinion was binding;
and, when confirmed by ours, is still more so- on
the Army of Fort St. 'George, who are not the
judges either in the first or last resort on that sub-
jo.
54. This is not a question in which the Officers,
of the Army could be justified to interfere. It con-
cerns the extent of your legal powers under the
constitution of your Government, upon which they
cannot sit in judgment. If the Commander in
Chief, Lieutenant-General Hay Macdowall, differed
with you, as he affects to do, on that point, he
might_ have properly stated it to 'the Court of Direc-
tors and to his Majesty's Government, fi)r their de-
cision ; hut, when he appealed that question to the
Army, which is subject to your authority in India,
as be did by his General Order of the 28th January,
he carried that controversy to a tribunal, the incom-
petence of which he well knew, 'and before which,
the agitation of such a question, as it could tend
to no -useful conclusion, so it could hardly rfitil
to kindle. animosity and excit discord, tending
assuredly .tor some mode or other of public dis-
order, and perhaps eventually to military insubor-
dination, and mutiny itself; in the progress of
which) calamity and distresS were sure to fall
first and heaviest on his own friends and associates.

55. 'We pass naturally froth the General Order
just mentioned, to the dismissal of the Officers who
pahlished it tr) the Army; and our sentiiileurs on
that subje:A.must materially depend on the opinion
we entertain of the character and tendency ,Of the
Order itelf. •

SG. In &liberating ;on the subject, we have not
thobght ourselves bound by the form under which
the substance and real purview,of this piper has,
for obvidos reasons, been disguised.
57. It purports to be a reprimand to-Lieutenant-
Colonel Munro 3. but substantially It cenvevs in every
line a reprimand to the Government of Fort St.
.-George; and that reprimand is addressed to , the
Army subject to its authority. l'he subject matter
of the censure, passed ostensibly on Colonel Munro,
Tenders it inseparable from a censure on the Govern-
The offence eh irgelt upon that Officer, in
his appeal to the Pretideitt in Council, from an ar-
rest itvased upon him by the Commander in Chief,
and the Gener:ll Order itself informs the Army, that
the appeal which is the subject of his reprimand,
was 'followed 1 lot by the reproof, but by the pro-.
tetSti
58.0 iGovernment.
Li utenanr Colonel Mu.nrO hadexliausted all
• the mans he possessed of obtaining relief from the'
Commander in Chief himself. This it was his duty
to do in the first instance. But when justice' was
denied in that- quarter, and when the hand of perse-
, tution pressed close upon him, we are decidedly of
Opinion that he had a right to claim the protection
of the Supreme Military Authority, which is vested
by law 'in the Goveinor 'in Council of Fort St.
GeOrge.
59. If that Government possessed a legal power
to intervene in a case of abuse, it could not be cri-
minal in the party suffering under it to claim their
protection; and tic cotidut 01. LieuL-Col. Mauro
could not ;nstly be made the subject of a reprimand.
do. That the Government of Fort, St .George is nut
restrained by law from thiS particular 'exercise of
the Supreme Military pov.ers which it posseL:ses;
as acknowiedg-cd: by Lieutehanteneral Mac-
doWall himself, since he obeyed their order for
. the riease'ois‘Lieutenant-Colonel Munro:. If that.
order had.-not oily been an undue encreachme.it
on his own authority aS Commander in Chief, but
had been beyond the legal and coin, etent powers
of those who issued it, he would not have been
bound to obey it, as he distinctly..prolessed himself
to be.

ht. The Government of Fort St. George did not
exceed therefore their legal powers ; and the only
question that could be made was, whethr.r they. CK-
ercised them properly in the particular instance.
On that point, undoubtedly, the Government.ofFort
St. George is sunject to the respon,ibility u hick is
inseparable from the exerc'se of ail delegated autho-
rity. But to what tribunal wer4 they amenable ?
Wh-'re was :t proper ? \Vh -re was it for the public
interest,•that Lieutenant-Gen:Nal Macdowail should
carry his appeal ? To the Army of Fort S'ir. George,
or to the King and Court of Directors ? • •
62 That he should coney tin's question to the
Army, in the shape of a reprimand to Lieutenant-
Colonel Munro, appears to be in contradiCtion to
his own sentiments on •the subject, as wr have just
stated them ; for, if: the Government, of Fort St.
George had a legal 'Tower to release Lieutenant-
Colonel Munro, it could not be cririAnal—it could
not, in any mode or degree, be culpable—it could
not incur the penalty of a reprimand--but it was
his clear right and privilege to claim the legal and
competent protthion of Government from the op-
Rresion of the Commander in Chief.
-63. If the Governrivult, op the contrary,-Klid not
posSi-ss toose powers, Lieutenant-Geueral Mac-
dowall owed them no obedience.

64. If the legality of those powers be disputed,
notwithstanding the tehtimony borne to it by Lieu-
tenant-Ge. eral Macdowall's submission, it is ag;lin
to be asked, to what tribunal that dispute i question
ought to have been submitted— 4 o the Army, o.r to
the6uprem e Authorities in England ?

65. 'lt is aiso to be inquired whether, in a contrc-

- - _
versy bettVeen the Commander in Chief and 07e
Government; concerning the limits of their re.tpe:-
tive •1112110-itiec., it sva; lit that, Lieutenant-Genera;
01061:1 arnigate the deci4ol to hi n 4-11.::
and ;,a,,:-.tione.?_l !done by his ow-r n-ittioo in !,i.
shnttid inoil a severe punishment on Lieut.-
Co1on:::1'•MillIrr), !laving.v.ted on ;-1 cliff:rent oH.-
n]n't ; I),a :one ,vhieh It'd been supported by the
judgment -of t:-:e G,sver:rment, that is to say, of
aitd of a military anthoritv, t
or the: C,minnnder in • Chief hiniself, and .1

whore army, is made snbnrdin2te by al i the,
6r tisf, Leg,latu',..;.!—an authority to which they
owed i.nplicit yb,.dience ; and v .iico 01,13., 3, e
try least, 1411- been kit' to cllaileng,,! sufficieil
respect to c'xerunt an individual Officer from I -
putation of a ciictit: fur having acted conc)rmauly
it. • .
66. The reprimand to Lieutenant-Colonel Munro
thetefore w'as not only not netessary,` but it ',va;
unjust,' and inconsistent with the principle,
Lieutenaut-Central. Madowall had hialicif pro-
fessed.

67. For these reason-s.we considn the shape given
to,the General Order of the 28th Janulry as merely
colourable and we are of opinion, .that the repri-
mand to Lieutenant-Colonel Munro was evidently
intended only. as a Vehicle for circulltit4.g throng l-
out the Anny'serving under the GivVertlrllelt
Fort St. George, a vehement and inteMperate public
censure of that Government, and an inflammatory
address to the professional feelings of that Army, on
topics thought likely to produce irritation and disk
order. It was, in. other words, a most seditious pa-
per, under the title of a General Order to the Art ny,
and bearing the thin disguise of a reprimand to a par-
ticular officdr.

68. That this attempt to excite irritation, and to
produce disorderly conduct amongst officers of the
army, has .not been entirely unsuccessful, we lament
the necessity of acknowleaging ; and that those de-
signs have nevertheless been substantially frustrated,
and have failed• in far the greater' part, we have a
cordial satisfaction in ascribing, first to the good
sense of the arrity at large, which could not be 'mis-
led by fallacies so easily detected ; bnt next and prin
cipally to the firm attachment to the dutie, of ult.:lr
prof:esSion, and to that steady 1. l'a'cy an" incor-
ruptible fidelity, which, in that araly, we are con-
fident,. will ever- be found proof Itaitibt the art 3 and
Seductions of flictiOn.

69., Notwithstanding the sentiment; we hwe
expreSsed concerning the true- nature anti tendeury
of the General Order in question, we hate not
gleted to consider whether the officers w!io p7ivc t
currency, by the orders of the Connnanie-
wetit responsible for its criminal purport, and
*oil that Recount, justly remoyed from their offices.
7.0. In deliberating upon this question, WC 1-;.-
soi.ted*naturally to such general principles applicaWe
Ito the subject, w 2 thought best established, .and
most free frorn_doubt.

7 tr. The following propositions have appeared.th
us of that descr4,tion : -
First—That, as a general princii le, a military ,-)f-
-ficer is notonly justified in obeying an order of his
superior, but that he is bound to do so withriut re-
.gaid- to the quality of the order. Under this head
we consider the Adjkitant-General as obliged, in-a
peculiar manner, by the duties of his office, to pub-
lish the army any orders Which the' Commander
in Chief -may commit to him for that purpose.-.
We are clearly of opinion; as a general prin6ple,
that the Adji4:ant-Generalis not bound to delib-!rate
on the propriety of the order whiCh.he is command-.
ed to -issue that it would be a breach of military
duty to do -so ; that he is merely ministerial in these
functions, and is not responsible, personally, fa:
The propri-etr or impropriety of the orders he may
circulate officially to the atmy.
72 We regard these principles- as very import-
ant,' and in a manner fundamental in the theory '():"
military subordination.
Secondly—We consider, however, as not less
established, that the general principle above stated
is subjea to exception and modification. The mo
dification by which the general princ4)!e of simple
obedienceaought to be limited, is in our judgment the
following: That criminal orders are not to he obeyed;
and that the officer who executes a criminal order'of
his superiot is personally respoos!ble for his condi.:
We look upon this modification of the general. mi-
litay principle as forming it-mclf a great and primitive
principle, not less importaat and fundamental fn.
the civil secnrity of society, than we allow the othef
maxim of implicit obed.ence to be for the due sup-
port of military subordination. -

• 73. Considering then, as we have already stated,
the General Order of the 28th of Jan. as-a seditious
paper,'wv. might at once pronounCe the Adjutant and
Deputy Adjutant General guilty of sedition, by the
publication of that order, notwithstanding the au-
thority under which they aated.

74. tint that judgment would not be justified bv
the were criminality of the order which they issued;
and it is necessary, in order to establish their parti-
cipation in the crime,- and to render them personally
resp6nsibie,qo spew that they were acquit:flied witi)
the seditiouschara6ler of the paper. _

75. In forming our judgment upon this point, we
have not considered it as an abstratt que.tion, but as
fit to be combined with all the circumstances at the
case, and especially with those. in which the part
concerni:xt were placed; and from this view of t 1
iptestiOn it. 1193, in our opinion, resulted, that
Capper and Major Boles are to ne considered a, p:-tr-
taking personally in this act of Lieutenant. G.:ner-i
Macdowall, and as deeply responsible for its perni-
.cious and.critninal tendency.
77. Before this order was prepared, it was not
only known to .those two confidential Staff Of-fleet-4
of the Cothwanddr in Chief, but it was notorious
to the whole army and settlement, that there was a
warm and vehement- dissension between the Corn-

mander in Chief and the Government. These 0
ficers were acquainted with the prosecution of 'Lieu-
tenant-Colonel Munro, and the part Which Lieu-
tenant-General Macdowall hail taken -
(...teding. They knew that every step in thatextmoi
transrttion was a studied insult to. the G--
mint-lent. They knew that Litutenant-Geneiai
Macdowall had beCome the patron and clianii4 oi a
Memel-jai to the C,)urt of Directors, highly dis.w-
proved by the President in Council of Fort S.
George; %Ouch he had himself, at [he ,instance
that Government, and at no distant period, Written
circular fetters to discourage and suppress,, Lit
which, ita asiper stake of hostility tuward,z4he per-

'pressedin your General Orders of the Ist ultimo,
that it is not sufficient - tor officers holcliag corn-
mande fo avoid participation in such.proeeedings,
but that it is their positive and indispensable duty to
• adopt the Most decided measures for their suppres-,
slot), and to report theM to the superior authorities.
The
.purposes of tumult and sedition may as effec-
tually be promoted by their negative concurrence as
t)y their, aet ire patticipaticni
- 90. The tieeleet of duty is an offence varying
' only in degree from a positive violation of
.it—and
any officer "who, :wised of the progress of disore
--derly proceedings among those who are placed under
his immediate controul, abstains from any attempt
to suppress them, either by the exert ion of his. Own
authority, or by an, appeal to the superior poWer,.
gives to those proceedings one mode ot encourage-
ment; and cannot stand absolvecrof . blame, nor
found a claim to immunity, much less,te a continu-
ance of that implicit confidence, whic!: is attached
' to stations, of authority, on the basik of so culpable
, and mischievous a neutrality.
91. From' the whole of the preceding discussion,
you will naturally infer that we consider the otfences
charged against those officers whom,you have judg-
. ed It necessary to suspend or to depove of tireir ap-
pointments and eon-upends, tally justifying the re-
speatiVe degrees of punishment which
.you have al-
lotted to them.
92. The local means and advantages which you
possess, as well as the. great delicacy of the inquiry,
have necessarily piked the applicaion of there prue-
civles to inclividn'als, and the invests inoi: ot pat ti-
Culer cases, under your exchisiVe cognizence ; and
we have. only fo' express Ilia) entire coulidence which
is due.,tce your station and characters, in the justice
and imparliality,.not less than in the ‘.ieitince and
, activity of your proceedings in a scruney so pecu-
-80. In'a natural and v holesome state of things,'li:rriycircumstanced.
the obedience of subordinate Otticers is to be Un- 93. We observed with satisfaaion that the gene-
elicit; admitting of no deliberation and subject tort ral tenor of the replies to the Circular Letter ad-
no responsibility, except for plain and manifest dressed
.by Major-General Gowdie to the °Biters
crimes. In such ,distemperee seasons of open, cot,- ; commanding at the several.stat ions of the army, Mm
tention with Governments as are now in question, 4 fitms the ppinion whiCh we have 'eipresseie of the
addresses from Commanders in Chief to their ar-. loyalty of the major part-of the officers Of your es-
mies, leaving reference, to such debates, are a fir sub- ,t tablishment.
jai of 'deliberation to those whose office it may be 94. 10-assuring you, therefore, of the firm sup-
to transmit them; and a responsibility belonging ex- t port of this GovernMent, in maintaining' a contest.
,
elusively to such occasions, must attach even to their which involves all that is most dear to uueSevet ellen
official and ministerial ads. , and country, if; contrary to our ardent desire acid
81. In conformity 'with these sentiments, we 'sanguine hope, any future call should yet bL. made
have no deubt of the respensi'eility of the late Adju- i. on the power and energy of your Government
tart and Deputy Adju'ante.General of your army, on which may require„ w our aid ; e will conclude,
the-occasion of publishing the General Order of the !' however, with expiessing ore ferniest wisleend ex-
23th at January.; and we are of opinion, that if the t peaation, that the late afflicting agitations should
author: of that Orier is hitnself guilty of sedition, ; subside in a calm and' reasonable reliance en the
as we esteem him .to be, these confidential Officers wisdotn and justice of the high 'authorities to which
'ot, the, Staff, who consented 'to be the instruments the transactions of, this troubled period have been
of his crime, are, wider all the circutnStances, fine t advocated, and in those demonsirittions4 respect
plicated in the guilt and subject to the pew:Lit.'s of ! and obedience, which are due not more to yeer
the offence. station, than to the faithful and eoeourable dis-
-80. If there were doubt, however, upon this charge ot all your public but difficult duties, which,
question, which, as weighing general and lunda- i in our opinion, leas eminently oistinguistied the pre-
mental principles against parnoulat modlfications of sent 'Government of Fort St. George.
them, must - always be a delicate one, We cannot 1 95. Such a result will bt. most acceptable to us,
quit the subject without repeating, that it is nut a fit I
most accordant with w our vies, of the public lute-
!natter tor the interference of the army itself. In ! rest, and most congenial with those sentiments of
what particulars sedition may consist; under what affection and respect towards the army of t: Coast,
circumstances the Official iestrumentality of an otti- which we corslially profess, and remain assured that
cer Melte clime of a superior 6110 .subjed hint to •t- we shall never have reason to renounce. 'Vie have
personal responsibility, a:e q.testions to be discussed the honour to be, honoured Sir,
in colder blood, and by a different -descriptions d'f.
.Your must obedient. humble Servants,
•
Counsellors than ere always tat be feund iu numerous Mtn°,
bodies at a period of heat and irritation They are
J. LoiespeN:
worthy of the informed and impartial deliberatiOn
H. COLEBROOKE.
of his Majesty's confidential Servants and Advisers,
and, pf the,Supretne Euless of die army of India, the
Honourable the. Court of Direttors.

•
narked anil:pruinutod. It is, in tine, suppilltious to
prt ve what is beyond doubt, and is not denied, that
a warm passionate rupture had broken out between
these two high author ties.
_ _ _

77. :tile Con:mander in Chief of an army, in an
op, z, and ardent opposition to• the ..Government
which he serves, is no trivial event, and consti►utes
a fliAte of thing- front• which some consequences
?. hle to this question,. have appeared to us to

follow.
78. We. consider these circumstances, therefore,
Its fur ishing a rely mldification of the milnery
principle first asserted.; and we are of opinion, that
in such extraordiimiy and smomentous emergencies,
it is fit and necessary to require, that an Officer
whose duty it is to give currency to the -Orders of
the Commander in (Thief, should, contrary to the
general principle of blind obedience which ought "to-
prevail in ordinary times, carefully consider these
orders, and deliberate seriously upon their nature
and purview, before he pi-Wishes' them. The cii-
cula•ion, in heated and fattious times, of a seditiuus
address to the army, haS no analogy to the principle,
of minim), obedience, to a military order in.the corn-'
. mon dispatch of business, and cannot be governed
by the same rules.
,7g. We are, with .much and seriou,s reticetion,
decidedly of opinion, that this restrieVion of the
military principle, the general importance of which
we nevertheless feel most sensibly, cannot impair
tote obligations Of military subordination and obedi-
ence, in any Manner or, degree, prsejudiial to the
natural and legitimate ohje(Ets of military -command;
and that in times of trouble, it may afford a Most
salutary and necessary pi oteclion to the Government
and People against the possible perversion of mi-
litary stipremacy to the purpthes of sedition or fac-
tion.

83. To snatch a question of that nature and im-
rol once from the, ucci:iion of. those authorities, at
the very moment of its" formal reference to their
judgment, and, to cast it as a source of discordant
violence into the midst of at;. army airt,;]dy warmly
agitated, is the part of incendiaries and not of friends,
either to the army or the .State. his a great crime,
and being that of which the officers who have lately
experienced the marks of your displeasure have ap-
peared to you on a careful invegigationof the facts
to have been guilty, we have no hesitation, although
we deeply lame,t th.ZY occasion of this necessary
severity, in approving and conanending the vlgdant
energy with , which you have, in a season of treat
difficulty and danger, asserted the legal authority of
,your Government, prevented the fattious contagion
from spreading through the honourable and hitherto
untainted ranl7,s_of, the Coast Army, and, provided
for the security and integrity of the British Empire
in India.

A true Copy.
(Signed)
A. FALCORAII, Chief Sec. to Govenrnent.
Fort William, May z 7; 1809.

.84. You will perceive that much of what has been
said on the Memorial, is applicable to the address to
Major Boles. _ _ _

On Saturday two women, genteellydressedi went
to a linen-draper's-shop, near Covent-garden,- mid
purchased goOds of the shopman to the amount of
501. The women left the shop, desiring the goods
to be sent to No. tO, Adam-street, Ad:lphi. The
shopman having made out a bill of parcels, procured
a porter, who went with him, and took the goods,
as di,,ected. He saw the women ; they desired. him
to unpack the goods, that they might see whether
they were right, which he accordingly did. They
then asked for a bill and receipt, which he produce 4.
They then told him if he stepped into the counting
hOuse be would receive the money. One of them
opened a door to strew him into the counting-house ;
as soon as be had passed, he observed the door was
shut after hitn with some degree of violence, and
he was confident the key was turned ; this rather
alarmed him ; he proceeded to an adjoining room,
*here he. found a man, to whom he told his busi-
ness. The man asked him respealing the amount
of his .bill, and other business-like queStions, and
;hen tendered him two bills, one of w hie!), he said,
was his master's acceptance, therefore presumed he
could have no objection to taking it. 'The shopman
refused taking them, and said he sold' the goods for
money, which he expected ,to receive, or he would
take the goods again. The man told him he should
neither have the money nor the goods again,, and,
if he did not take the bills, he ,should not have any
thing. The shopman endeavoured to return by the
door the woman let him through, but found that
fast against him, and the man turned hina out of the
pretended counting-house into the street, another
way. On inquiry being made at the house, in the
evening, for the parties, We old lady who keeps the
house said, the two women and the man had only
lodged in the hbuse a tew days, and had left that
afternoon, and taken thegoods with them.'
Early on Saturday morkting, when Mr." Guest, a
woollen-draper, of
,Bedford-street, Cove6t-garden,
came down stairs to open the shop, lie discovered
that it had been broken open by means of art iron
crow, with which the shutter of the door had been
forced open a square of glass cut out, and the door
had been unbolted ; and, on examining the stock,
it was ascertained that the whole of the superfine
cloths and kerseymeres had been stolen, amounting
in value to about 1;4001. This is a most distress-
ing case, Mr. Guest is a young man and has riot
been long in business—during Saturday he was in a
most distracted state.

85. This is also a measure connected with a-mili-
tary combination, ft assumes the cogruzance of a
question which belongs to noel...and higher tribu-
nals.- It pronounces,. in th,) name of an army, open
censure of The' Cfovernmebt, which the' army is
bound to obey.

86. in these respells it stands on the same foot-
, ing, and partakes in all the criminality of the paper
we have already considered. But there is in the ad-
chess to Major Boles, a diameter of transcendent
guilt and . danger, which is peculiar to itself.
.•We
allude to the scheme, of which it professes to lay the
foundation, of a combination of private. power to '
contest with the power cf Government; organized
resources of resistance, mutual support against the
hand of justice; and.. indemnity against the legal
consequence of crinim
8 7 . We donut know bow it is possible to approath
much nearer that extreme crisis, whicli he so em-
piratically menaced ip the Memorial, without reach-
ing it. We trust, however, confidently, that those
tio have been improvidently betrayed into those
desperate. courses,. will have been awakened to a
sense of their perilous
.situation; and- that ny ar-'
resting the progress of the foremost, you , will have
saved their inconsider-ine followers from the ruin and
dishonour to which their _leaders were conducting
them.

.gs. With regard to those who have t,,kn a lead-
ing pArfia these criminal transa6tions, we *fed that
e.ery principle of tried and established policy, ap-
pncanle w such oniaupdures, and every oblegati.,n
of your sacred trust, forbad the e.teus.ton towards
them of a false and mischievous lenity.

At a great hunt which took placelately at Senern-
dorf, in Swabia, g 4, stags, 210 ro;.'bucks, :148 wild
boars, 26 foxes, and 14 hares were killed.
A three-inaste:l vessel frorn the Isle of FranCe is
arrived at Rochelle,