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

TIM STAT ES.VAN:

. .
approbation of youriost, legal, .and indispensa.
We interpositiott tettat occasion, to vindicate the
honour of your Golirnment, and to shield one of
your best and able servants from an arbitrary
and oppressive abt of power. if you had
.4
()pitted to du so, you would have failed in tho
most sacred ditties of your high station, and'
would
,have merited, because you would hate
sanctioned, that long train of insult and encroach-
tnent which was to follow, and of which the pro.,
secutlon of Lieut. 'Cul. Munro would have proved
to he only the first experimental step.
51. It is ailniitted that the warrant to%old ,
Courts Martial is addressed to the t,' ornmatsthr in.
Chief ; and we deem his authority exclusive in
that branch of the public Administration: • itut
the abdse of a legal power is Wept ; inid•the 'so.,
promo military cuutroul of the Governor in Cams.
sit extends, in our judgment, and beyona all.
doubt, to the prevention of such abuses.. This,
doesmot suppose an habitual .and indiscriminate
interference. We assert only for the Giiveres..
Mont of Flirt St. George, a right and. a legal
;timer to come, in extraurdittary eases; to the
support of lheir own authority, and against se.
dittoes encroachments combined with the oppress
lion of innocent mem, by a gross abuse of the
power confided to the Commander in Chief, in the.
direction of Military prosecutions.
52. If this , opitsiow were wrong, there are
higher authorities, who have power to pronounce
it erroneous, and to provide another remedy;
which in that case would lie necessary, for the
evil supposed.
. 53. In the mean while your opinion was bind.
fng 1 amd, when confirmed by Ours', is still' biota
to on the Army of Fort St. George? who are not
the judges either in the first or last resort on that
subject.
31. This is not a question in which the Officers
of the Army could be justified to interfere. It
concerns the extent of your • legal powers under
the constitution of your Government ; upon u Inch
they cannot sit in judgment. If the Commander
iP 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 Directors and to his Majesty's Govern.
nett, for their decision ; but when he appealed
that'question to the Army, which. is subject to
your authority in India, as he did by his General
Order of the t Bth January, he carried that con-
troversy to a tribunal, the incompetence of which
he well knew i and before which, the agitation of
such a question, as it could tend to no useful con..
elusion, so it could hardly fail to kindle aniniesity
and excite ditcurd, tending assuredly to souse mode
or other of public disorder, and perhaps eventu-
ally to military itisubordinatiott, and mutiny Reid ;
in the progress of whichi calamity and distresses
were sure to fall first and heaviest on his own
friends and associate.
53. We pass naturally from the General Order
just mentioned, to the dismissal of the Officers ts fro
published it to the Army ; and our sentiments on
that subject must materially depend on the opinion
we entertain of the character and tendency of the
Order itself.
: .55.."1n deliberating on the subject, we have not
thought ourselvei bound by the form under which'
Ifiii-Valiiitance grid Teal pnrriew of thir paper hun-
t* obvious reasons, been disguised.
57. It purports to boa reprimand to Lieutenant
Celonel Munro ; but substantially it. cuureys iu
every line a reprimand to the Government of Fort
St. George ; and that reprimand is addressed to the
Army subject to its authority. • The inblect mat
ter of the censure.; passed ostensibly on Colonel
Munro, renders it inseparable [roma censure on:
the Goiernment. Thu offence charged upon thai
Officer, in his appeal to the President in Couticilt,
from ists attest imposed upon him by the Coniman.
der in Chief, and the General Order itself, informs'
the Army, that the appeal, which ii the subject of;
his reprimand, was followed not by the reproof,
but by the protection of Government.
58. Lieutenant-Colonel Munro had exhausted.
all the means 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
1 persecution pressed close upon liiin,we are decidedly
of opinion, that he had a right to claim the pro.:
Itectioti of the Supreme Military Authority, whicbi
is vested by law in the Governor in Council of,
Fort St. George. , •
59. If that Government pAsesse a legal pdwor
to intervene in a case of abuse, it could not be
criminal in the party iutfering under it to claim
their protection ; and the conduct of bieut..Col.
.
Munro could not justly be made the subject of a
reprimand. •
60. That the Government of Fort-St. deorge
is nut restrained by, law from this particular exer.'
rise of the Supreme Alilifary pOwers Whichlt 'pos..
sesses, was acknowledged by Lieutenant-General'
Macdowall himself, since he obeyed their order
for the 'release or Lieutenant-Culunel Munro. If
that order had not only beets an undue encroach.
meat on his own authority as Commander-in
Chief, but had been beyond the legal and compe-
tent powers of those Who issued iti he mtunlil not'
have been bound to obey it, as he distinctly pro.
fessed himself to be.
Gl. The Government of Fort St. Coorge did not
ertered therefore th.ir legal powers; anti the only
question that could be made was, whether they
exercised them properly in the particular instance.
On that point, undoubtedly, the Guiernment of
Fort St. George is subject to the responsibility
• which is inseparable from the exercise of all dele.
gated authority. But to what tribunal were they
amenable ? Where was it proper? Where was
it for the ytiblie. interest, that Lieutenant-General,.
Macduwall should carry his appeal ? Tv the Aunt
of Fort St. George, or to the King and Conn*,
Directors ? fr ' 14C .
Gt. That he should convey this question to r es
Army, in the shape of a reprimand to Lientenawt.
Colonel-Munro, appears to be in contradiction to
his own- sentiments on the subject, as weelsavo I
just stated them ; for, if the Government of Furt
St. George had a legal power to release Lieuteoant."
Colonel Munro, it cciwitl not be criminal—it could
not, in any modc'or degree, be culpable—it could

not-incur the-penalty-of-a repvimatrd—butit iSlig -
his eleer right and privilege to claim the legal and
competent preteetiarenfAieevernment from the op.
pressiou of the Contemnler in Chief.
63.. If the Governmeetl, on the contrary, did
not possess those.
,powers, Lieutenant-General
Mcdowall awed Alatte,utidabedience.
"''63. If the legelity grilles@ ppwers be disputed,
wtatrithstatultng the • -4:44iminv itoine to it $y
liFlicatenantzfirmarakMackwall's)sqltinission, it is
*Milt .to bOfistticedik, lo•nAkttribunalisthat disputed
cquestion ougia to have bean submitted—to the
I or -to. tbeAupteemibAtetherities in Fug..
.
f4h. It is also to be iaqttiretl whether, in a can.
trov.ersy.betiveea the Commander in Chief and the
Government, concerniug the limits of their respec.
tire autlitirities, it was fit that Lieutenant.Gene.rel
Macdowall should arrogate the decision to him.
self ; and sanctioned alone by his own .opinion in
his own case, should inflict a severe punishment on
Lieutenant-Colonel Munro, for. having acted on -a
different opinion ; but one which had been stip_
ported by the judgment of the Government, that
is to say, of an authority, and of a military att.
thority, to which that of the Commander In Chief
himself, and of the whole army, is made subordi.
n.ite by an act of the British Legislature—an an.
thority to which they owed implicit obedience ;
and which must, at the very Nest, haie been felt
to challenge a 'efficient respect to etempt an indi.
victual Officer from the implitatiou of a crime for
having acted conformably to it.•
66. The -reprimand to. Lientenant.Colonel
Munro therefore was not only not necessary, but.
'lt' was unjust, atictinconiistent with the principle
which fateutenant-General Macdowall had ltimself
professed.
67. For these reasons, we consider the shape
given to tho General Order of the 28th January as
merely colourable ; and we are of opinion, that
the reprimand to Lieutenant. Colonel Munro was ,
evidently intended only as a vehicle for circulating
throughout the army serving under the Gott:mint:in
of Fort St. George, a vehement and intemperate
public censure of that Government, and an-inflate:
matury address to the professional feelings of that
army, on topics thought likely to produce irrita4
tion and disorder. It was, in other words, a most •
seditious paper, under the title of a General Orders
to the army, and bearing the thin disguise of-u re.
primand toe particular

68. That this attempt to excite irritation, and
to protlicv disorder by conduct amongst officers of
the army, has not . been entirely uAnccessfill, ws • •
!Tent the necessity or ack'nowledgiog ; and that
those designs hare nevertheless been substantially
_frustrated, and 'baba failed in fwd the greater part, '
.w•thasie a4bfildiatentiefactinr(e in awitibing. first to
it bll good sbitse,of')ihe army at !aro/co which could .
not. la,' miti6d by *fa !lecke. so lussily .41ktected ; bnt
. eat and principally to the firm attachment to the.
lies of thdifoprokixioil,lnd to .tliatt steady log.
any and incorr4tptible fidelity which, in that army'
we aro coiplident, will ever belound proof against.
the arts and se.ductiortauf faction.
69. Notwiiiistaneittolseseatiments we bare CYL. .
pressed concerning-46.0 w nature and teudency
of the G eneral • Order iii question, we hero nut
neglected to consider whether theoffic...rs wli.) gave
,:. •• . •••...2m. .. i • • 1.. 2 A 0 Al /-9

Chief, were responsible for its criminal purport,'
and were, on th.it account, justly rcaiovod from
their offices. .
70. In deliberatintepon this question, we re.
sorted naturally to !ebb general principles &Ml.;
cable to the subject, ati we thought best eatablithetir
sai` id most free from doubt.
-
'7l: The.,rdlloe rug ptioiiosiiierie kali appeared.
1 I.(i ,
to us of thiot description 4., :
Tiest—:f hat, as a general prinertila, s military.
officer Is Ith unlit jtettigo in obeylqg an order of;
lid; superior, butethat lwia,bottiiii-te do so without.
ifgiril to'-the quality orthe order. • Under this.
40 we consider the Adjitant-GCtieral as Wife..
e.A, 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. of the
order which he is commanded to issue; that it
would be a breach of military duly to do so; that.
he is merely ministerial in .these functions, and is
not- responsible, 'personally, for the propriety or.
impropriety of the (alleys he ,ulay circulate offici-
al!), to the army. . e '
72. Wu regard these pririciplee•as very import..
ant, •antll in a inanner,• fundamental in the theory
of militarrairbordination; . •
Secondly—We consider, however, as not less .
established, that the general principle above btated.
is subject to exception aad motlifivatron. The mu..
_dificatieu by which thegeneral principle of simples
• :obedience ought to be limited; is, hi our judgment ;
•i;ngaito-Lithliaatt ctrisem
(i
)12fria
cl e orrdlevrhso atr,xecentio:test: ,
tbhedobfoeyllo:l
criminal order of his superior, is personally :wpm!).
slide for his conduct. -We look upon this modi4.
cation of the general military principle as forming. .
itself a great and primitive principle, not less im.
portant and fundamental fur the civil security of
society, than we allow the other maxim 'of impli.
cit obedience to be fur the dye support of military
subordination. .
73. Considering then, as we have already stated,
the General Qi der of the 28th of January as a se.
ditiuu, paper, ise might itt once pronounce the
Adjutant and Deputy Adjutant General guill of
sedition, by the publication of that order, not,
withstanding the authority under ii/Och they
Acted.
74. But that judgment would not be justified by
:the mere erimiii,ility of the order which they issued,
and it is necessary, in. order to establish their par-
ticipatiun iwthe crime, end to render them perm),
rally respysible,. to ehcw that they were ac.
qutonted 41th . thu licditions character of the
paper.
76. In feinting out judgment upon this point,
we bee not convidered,,it es Ito aloaract question,
but as 4t to bet uniOioed withull the rireummatic.r* .
of the case, and especially with thoso in si hich ,i. 4
parties concerned weir placed; and from this v.'w
of the question it his, in our opinion, rcsiali'Lilf .114

9•..

.==,

A