Star.
London, England, 1810-01-09 00:00:00

and of a military authority, of which that of the
Commander in Chief hientelf, and of the whole army,
is made stilmrdinattlty an act Of...the-British Legis-
/ature—an authority to which they owe implicit obi.
dience ; and which must, at the very least have been
felt to challenge sufficient respect to exempt an ,indi:
t
vidual docer from the impu nof a criniefer has.
ing askii conformable to it. . .
66;: the reprimand to Lieutenant-Colonel Munro,.
therefore, was not only not necessary ; but it •.vras
unjust, and inconsistent with "the principle which
Lieutenant-General Macdowall had himself pro-
felted.

67. For these reasons, we consider the shape given
to the General Order of the 28th January as. merely
colourable ; and we are of opinion that the reprimand
of Lieutenant-Colonel Munro was evidently intended
only as a vehicle for circulating throughout the army
serving under the Government of Fort St. George a
vehement and intemperate public censure of that Go-
vernment, and an inflammatory address to the pro-
fessional feelings of that army, on topics thought
likely to produce irritation and disorder. It was, in
cher words, a most seditious paper, under the title
of General Order to the Army, and bearing the thin
disguise of a reprimand to a particular officer.
68. That this attempt to excite irritation and to I
produce disorderly conduct among the officers of the
army, has not been entirely unsuccessful, we lament
the necessity of acknowledging ; and that those de-
signs have nevertheless been substantially frustrated,
and have fade' in for the greater part, we have a
cordial s. tisfaction in ascribing, first, to the good
sense of the army at large, which could not be mis-
led by fidlacies so easily detected ;but next and prin-
cipally to the firm attachment to the duties of their
profession, and to that steady loyalty and incorrup-
sible fidelity, which, in that army, we are confident,
will ever be found proof against the arts and seduc-
tions of faction.

G 9. Notwithstanding the sentiments we have ex-
pressed concerning the, true nature and tendency of
the General Order in question, we have not neglected
to consider whether the officers who gave it currency,
by the order of the Commander in Chief, were re-
sponsible for its criminal purport, and were, on that
account, justly removed from their offices.
70. In deliberating upon this question, we resorted
nairrally to such general principles applicable to the
subject, as we thought best established, and most free
from doubt.

71. The following propositions have appeared to
us of that description :
First—That, as a general principle, a military offi-
cer is not only justified in obeying an e.rder of his su-
perior, but that he is bound to do so without regard
to the quality of the order. Under this head we con-
sider the Adjutant-General as obliged, in a peculiar
manner, by the duties of his office, to publish to the
army any orders which the Commander in Chief may
commit to him for that purpose. We are clearly of
opinion, as a general principle, that the Adjutant.
General is not bound to deliberate on the propriety
dif the order which he is commanded 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, for the propriety or impro.
priety of the orders he may circulate officially to
the army.
72. We regard these principles as very invasions.
and, in a manner, fundamental in the theory of OM.
tary subordination.
Secondly—We consider, however, as not less esta-
blished, that the general principle above stated is sub-
ject to exception and modification. The modification
by which the general principle of simple obedience
ought to be limited, is, in our judgment, the follow.
ing :—that criminal orders are not to be obeyed ; and
that the officer who executes a criminal order of his'
superior is personally.respontiblefor his conduct. We
look upon this modification of the general military
• principle as forming itself a great and primitive prin-
ciple, not less important anti fundamental for the civil
security of society, than we allow the other maxim of
implicit obedience to be for the due support of mili-
tary subordination.
73. Considering then, as we have already stated, the
General Order of the 28th of January as a seditious
paper, we might at once pronounce the Adjutant and
Deputy Adjutant General guilty of sedition, by the
publication of that order, notwithstanding the autho-
rity under uhich they acted.
74. But that judgment would not be justified by
the mere criminality of the order which they issued ;
and it is necessary, in order to establish their partici-
pation in the crime, and to render them personally
responsible, to chew that they were acquainted with
the seditious character of the paper.
75. In forming our judgment upon the point, we
}lave not considered it as an abitract question, but as
`fit to be combined with all the circumstances of the

case, and especially with those in which the parties
concerned were placed ; and from this view of the
question it has, in our opinion, resulted, that Colo-
nel Capper and Major Boles are to be considered as
partaking personally in thii act of Lieutenant-Gene-
ral Macdowall, and as deeply responsible for its per-
uicious and criminal tendency.
6. Before this order was prepared, it was not only
knohn to those two confidential staff-officers of the
Commander in Chief, but it was notorious to the
whole army and settlement, that these was a warm
and vehement dissention between the Commander in
Chief and the Government. These officers were ac-
qnainted with the prosecution of Lieutenant-Colonel
Munro, and the part which Lieutenant-General Mac-
dowall had taken in that proceeding. They knew
that every step in that extraordinary transaction was
a studied insult to the Government. They koew
that Lieutenant-General Matdovrall had become the
patron-and channel of a Memorial to the Court of
Directors, highly disapproved by the President in
Council 4;f Fort St. George, which he had himself,
at the instance of that Government, and at no dis-

tant period, written circular letters to discourage and
suppress, but which, in a riper stage of hostility to-
wards the person and authority of the Governor,
he had countenanced and promoted. It is, in fine,
e'iperfluous to prove what is beyond doubt, and is not
denied, that a wain imisionate rupture. had broken
• •,tit between thessitwo high whorities.

.11‘? dm!IIPPINI/111PPring
isocstd inflict a sevasie punishtnen op Lipureaant-tx-
ibnel Munro, for.karingactedon a different opinion ;
but one which has beea supported by,thejadgment
of the Government, that is to 4%ty,. Ai an authority
-a* r • • . . .