(1786) letter from major burghall to the honourable directors of the east-india company

8/9/2019 (1786) Letter From Major Burghall to the Honourable Directors of the East-India Company

1/78

ofLetter fro all

o the honourable -.rectorstl -t -India -Co

e org e B' irrha 1 1


2/78

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAAT LOS ANGELES


3/78


4/78


5/78


6/78


7/78


8/78


9/78

L E T T E RFROM

MAJOR BURGHALLTO THE HONOURABLE THE

DIRECTORSOF THE

EAST-INDIA-COMPANY,


10/78


11/78

1

LETTERFROMMAJOR B U R G H A L L

TO THEHONOURABLE THE DIRECTORS OF THEJ

EAST- INDIA -COMPANY.

GENTLEMEN,THE refolution of the igth of July 1780, made bythe then Court of Directors, not to reftore me to

>. the Company's fervice, has produced the fevereft effects' on my mind and fituation. The terms of it reach both.N iny honor and fortune. The former is touched by it ;^ becaufc I am forced to believe, it muft have proceeded

from previous reprefentations, indirectly importingcharges againft

me for mifconduct as an officer, Thelatter is endangered by the refolution ; becaufe, if itftiould remain unrevoked, I am for ever banifhed from

tanhonorable fervice, on which the fubfiftence of my*

felf and family wholly depends. With fo much atflake, therefore, it would be both unnatural and un* ,manly, if I did not make every effort to refill the doubleturn with which I am threatened. At firfl indeed the

B refelution


12/78

( 2 )refolution againft me fo wounded and agitated mythat it's powers of aftion were fufpended. Birt afterfome interval of reflection I refolved to adopt the modvigorous and effectual meafures, as well for the vindi-cation of my character, as for the recovery of my em-ployment in the Company's fervice. Leaft, however,the (harpnels of my feelings fliould mifguide my judg-ment, and betray me into any error or impropriety inthe mode of proceeding for the attainment of juftice,I no lon,er trufted to my own iingle and unaffifledopinion, but fought for the aid of legal advice and di-reftion. My firft ftep with this view was, to lay all therelative papers and fals of my cafe before my folicitor;and afterwards through him, thefe, with a ftatementof the principal occurrences in the firm of a cafe, werefubmitted for the confide ation of counfeh The refulth, that 1 am encouraged" by the counfel thus inftrucled,once more, Gentlemen, to offer myfelf for your con-fideration a;nd: juftice. Notwithftanding too fo un-fdvorable a decision in the firil inftance, I truft youwill give me the fame candid and impartial hearing asif it was intirely a new cafe. Severely as thh firft judg-ment operates, whilfl it is un epealed, I have neverimputed to any member of your body the leaft wilfulinjuftice. No, Gentlemen, fo far from being guilty offiich a cfifrefpecl, I have given each full credit forhonor and1 integrity of intention; and" I have attributedfiich decifion, partly to my own want of flcill in re-

prefentihj


13/78

( 3 )presenting my injuries, and panly to the influence ocriminating papers hitherto unanfwered. Belides whatI now propofe to fubmit to y,:u will in a great mea'urerender my cafe a new one. When I firft folicited yourattenti n, I appeared as a c mplainant, and applied fora redrefs of grievances. But the extracts of Fort St.George confutations, which.have beendigefted for yourvsfe, and which we:e firft communicated to me in June1780, changes, or as I fhould rather fay, extends tryoriginal ground j and I now coir.e before you, notmerely to fuilain my complaints of hardships, but prin-cipally as a defendant and to clear my character fromcriminating infinuations. Theie feems, however, anLnfeparable connection between the two fituations -thusdefcrihed ; for, unlefs I greatly mifcor.ceive the prefentcircumflances of my own cafe, I ihall fail or fucceed i$.thi former, in proportion as I acquit myfelf in thelatter,The refolution not to relbre 'm involves- two con-

cluuons, both of which I equally controvert. It implies,that I am out x>f the Company's fervice. It more thanimplies that I am unworthy of being re-admit;ed.Therefore I will op-. n my objections to the refolution,by confid-ring it in each o f thefe points of view.

In refpect to my being out of the fervice I have everdenied i: ; and if I am fo, it cannot be by reafon of a^.yact done avowe '.ly and directly ior that purpofe ; fornone fuch can be pointed out. On the past of the

B 2 Company,


14/78

( 4 )Compar.y, no o:\ler has b:en pafled abroad or here, ex*preffing a removal of me. On my part there is not anyexpre s refignatton. I know indeed, that a conftruftiverefignation is objected to me ; one faid to be warrantablyinferred f om my actions and conduct. But before I canbe jnftly diverted of fo valuable a conne&bn, as that ofan officer with the Eaft India Company, by argumentand conduction, it furely is neceflary to ftate and provefome clear and ftrong grounds for fuch a proceeding.It is no flight th'ng to infer the renunciation cf an ho-rorable and beneficial employment; more efpeciallywhen it has been enjoyed for 17 years, and the fub-fiftence of the party concerned, and of a large family,alrnoft wholly depends on continuing the pofleffion.The grounds and reafons for fo harfli and fevere an im-plication ought to be decidedly clear and unambiguous.Whether any fuch grounds exift in my cafe, will befeen by a review of the feveral circumftances, whichhave been or may be urged to warrant declaring me outpf the fervice.The 0r/gvWpretext of the Board at Madrafs for treat-

ing me as out of the fervice was, that my letter to themof the 24th ofAuguft 17/8 contained a requejl ofpermijfi. nto refgn, and that by their yiJding to my requeft therefignation became complete. But if the terms of theletter thus rel'ed upon are reforted to, it will immediatelyappear, that I had not expreffed any thing like a wifhpr requeft of leave to refign. What it did exprefs was,

that


15/78

( 5 )that I bad afked leave from General Munro to return to VMadrafs ; and that in confequence of fevere difappoint-ments and hsavy expences, I intended returning withiny family to Europe. It was therefore mifreprefen-ting my letter to call it a requeft of leave to refign. Itcontained no rcqucjl to the Board of any kind. Kefig-ltati*n was not mentioncd in it. Nor did the occafion of xthe letter in the leaft juilify a fuppofition, that I vvifhedto refign. The difippointments I alluded to were vknown by the whole army and fettlement to be of fucha nature, that it could not be doubted, but that myreturn to England, if it took place, would be with aview, not to relinquifh the Company's fervice, but toafiert my rights and pretenfions to employment in it, ac-cording to my rank and commiffion as Major and Di-resftor of Engineers, by an appeal to the Court of Directors ; which latter purpofe was equally different Afrom and inconfiftent with the former. Foralmoft two ^years together I had been continually feeking to be putupon duty in compliance with the ftrong recommen-dation from the Court of Directors, which accompaniedmy commiffion; nor did I entertain a thoughtleaving India, till I had loft all hopes of employmentthere without coming to England for the redrefs of mygrievances ; as appears by the fads ftated in my primedcafe.

Afterwards the Board at Madrafs found it convenientto re'tracl imputing to me apojttive and fA/r


16/78

V leave to reHgn ; and then I was told, that my letteramount d to and could be confidered by them in no otherlight than as a f'efire to r'fign. This was the language ofthe letter from their fecretary, when, in confequenccof a vacancy in my line by the death of Major Stevensat Pondicherry, I was induced to waive my intention ofreturning to England, and folicited to fucceed him as

*.s fcireftor of engineers. But why fliould the Board atMadrafs interpret a letter to import a defire of refigning,when no fuch defire was exprefled in it ? The letterdid not avow any diilike to an active employment ac-cording to my rank and ftation in the Company's fer-vice; nor did my intention of going to England importa defire of renouncing fervice ; for as I have alreadyobferved, it originated from the want of employmentconformable to my rank ; and the only purpofe, forwhich I meant to go to Europe, was to enforce mybeing employed by the interpofition of thofe fromwhom I had received my commilfion. Thus the defign.of my letter was apparently as foreign to a deare or arequeft to refign, as the words of it were. Indeed Ge-neral Munro himfelf was from the firfl entirely of thisopinion, and teftified it by a letter to the Board atMadrais ; for though he had feen my letter to them,and had given me leave to go jo Madrafs and prefent it,yet when the Select-committee afterwards fent to him fora perfon to fupeiintend the works there, he wrote inanivver, that I had left Pondicherry before the letter

arrived,


17/78

{ 7 )arrived, and therefore that he hoped my Icing tbtre wouldiefuffident. Why would not the Board at Madrafs give:the fame candid conftruclion to my letter, as GeneralMunro, to whom I fhewed it before it was fent ? I ^fear, that their not doing fo proceeded rather from adefire on their part to keep me out of the fervice, thanany opinion that I wifhed to relinquifh it. ,At a ftibfequent period the Board at Madrafs reforted

to new ground to juftify their confidering me as out ofthe fervice. They no longer infilled, either on myhaving ajked leave to refign, or on my defire to refign.But they founded the fnppofed' refignation on myleav'ng Pond'cbtrry, and on my ajking leave to retire vjitbmy family to England. Thefe two fads I prefume were /\referred to, with a view to prove againft me a dere itficttof the fervice. Both of them require my obfervation ;particularly the former, becaufe here I perceive myhonor as a foldier attacked.

If the facl of my leaving Pondicherry was, as theGovernor and Select-committee of Fort St. Georgehave thought fit to reprefent it in their fccret correfpon-dence with the Court of Directors, there might bereafon for calling it a dereliction of fervice, and I fhouldmake no attempt to juftify myfelf. But the Board ofMadrafs have done me a great injury by their mannerof Hating this faft j and in juftice to my own charac-ter I muft fay, that, if they fliould flill perfevere in thefameftatement, I (hall hold them guilty of a deliberately

fatt'c


18/78

( 8 )falfe reprefentation of me. But at prefent I will hopeothenvife, and that fuch of them as are now in Eng-land will explain or apologize for their conduct in thatrefpect as the effect of precipitancy. There are twoletters from the Governor and Select-Committee tothe Court of Directors, in which the fact of myleaving Pondicherry is noticed ; and in both the man-ner is mif-ftated. In the firft, dated the i yth of Oc-tober, 1778, the Board fay, that I badjoined the army^Icfore Pondi berry > but that lefore the operations of the

ficge commence^ I defired leave to return to Madrafs, anden my arrival delivered to them my letter of refignation ;adding, that J had founded my application to rrfign andgohome chlejly on family conjiderations. In the fecond,dated the i3th of March, 1779, they are more decifivein refpect to my leaving Pondicherry ; for they pofi-tively aflert, what they had before only wifhed to in-iinuate, that I had left it when on duty. But the realfacts of the cafe were widely different from this repre-fentation. No perfon can read thefe letters withoutfuppofing, that I was on a&ual duty at Pondicherry,and that I relinquished this duty at the critical moment,when it moft required my prefence. But in truth I wasnot ftrictly fpeaking on duty at Pondicherry ; for I wasnot there as a director of engineers or in any otherofficial character. I both went and ftaid there without

f^ any appointment. Before the war with France wasknown in India, repeated refufals to employ me hadgiven


19/78

( 9 )given bccafion to my 'avowing an intention to cohie .jtiome and reprefent my grievances j and in June,1778, I had a&ually taken my paflage io the LathamIndiaman with that view. But, on report of the warwith France, I renewed my applications for fervice ;and in confequence of the molt folemn and favorableaflurances from Sir Thomas Rumbold and GeneralMunro, I poftponed my intention of returning, tillthe event of fome propofitions for putting me on duty Awas known. In this fufpence of my affairs the fiege ofPondicherry was refolved upon ; and Major Stevens,who was appointed to that fervice as director of en-gineers, reprefenting to me his ill ftate of health andthe uncertainty of his being able to take the field, I wasinduced by his requeft to go forward to Parmacoel forthe purpofe of making preparations for the fiege, inorder that the fervice might not be impeded by MajorStevens's abfence, and alfo in hopes, either that Ifhould fucceed to his iituation as director of engineers,if he fliould continue too ill to leave Madrafs, or thatthe applications I then had depending for being em-ployed in fome other way might terminate in my favor.But I went on this fervice without either the form or the> ^emoluments of any appointment ; and therefore my fer-vices were quite voluntary and gratuitous. After /\flaying a (hort time at Parmacb'el, I proceeded to Pon-dicherry in confequence of a letter from GeneralMunro. But (till I was there without any official cha-C racier.


20/78

racier. I was" not put into the julic orders, nor in anyreipect recogmzed according to my rank and itation.Not only a fnt was refufcd to r;,e ; but I was not eveni.iaile acquainted ivi


21/78

iind and Waldorc redoubts, and to turn, themthe fort. On hearing this 1 undertook the lervice with- ^out a moment's hefitation; and what followed was, thatJ drew the firft (hot from the enemy in Hning out thttt'ork.cf thofe redoubts with my own hands. I# thi$iitu*tidn I remaine4 for five .days together, during which -time we fuilained a very heavy and inceflant fire, beingespofed to the whole ca-nnon of the north front of theenemy's works ; till perplexed at our perfcverance iriproceeding with our works without making them anyreturn of fire7 and a^amed of fuch a fruittefs expenccof ammunition, they ceafed firing altogether. But when vthis bufinefs was completed, I was no longer conferredwith by Major Stevens on the operatioas of the fiege,and I faw myielf reduced into a fituation equally uftlcfs,and infi^nificant. Therefore I thought it the proper A.time to avow my refolution of returning to England onaccount of the numerous difappointments I had metwith. Accordingly I difcourfed with General Munro onthe fubjcift, Jhewed him the letter I had written to the /Select- eommittee of Fort St. George expreffive ofmy in^ ;Mention, and with his confent left the camp to deliver itat Madrafs ; aad fo far was he from considering the ftepas a dereliction of the fervice or in any degree renfuriagit, that he foon after, as is before noticed, impiiedly /recommended my being appointed to the care of theworks at Madrafs. Indeed he knew, that my motivefor leaving the fiege was the not being officially employ*C % tdj


22/78

ed; and fo his letter to me of the ai& of October1 778 imports, where he obferves, that neither he nor Icould forefee what afterwards happened to Major Ste-vens j which amounts to an acknowledgment, that, if Ihad forefeen the profpect of a vacancy for me, I fhouldnot have had a thought of leaving the camp..- Thus itappears, that the representation of the Select-committeeof the circumftances of .^my leaving Pondicherry isthroughout injurioufly erroneous. They ftate my beingat Pondicherry as if I bad joined the army in my officialelarafter as director of engineers. But in truth myfervice there was purely voluntary and gratuitous.They aflerr, that I left Pondicherry before the opera-tions of the fiege commenced. But the fa


23/78


24/78


25/78


26/78

referred to England for redrefs ; all which appears from'the correfpondence in my printed cafe, and will be moreparticularly explained, when I obferve on the circum-fiances, which finally compelled my aftual return. Iftherefore my Julfequent conduH is to be the ground fordeciding whether I meant to acquiefce in the Board'*conftruing my firft letter a refignation, let the whole ofthat conduct be taken into confideration, not merely afart of it ; and in that cafe it will appear, not only thatI never exprefled an acquiescence in fo injurious a con-ftru&ion, but that I complained of and remonftratedagainft it as foon and as often as I faw the leaft profpefcor opportunity of putting me upon fervice.

Thus, Gentlemen, I have followed the Governor andSeleft-committee of Fort St. George through all thereafons given by them for holding me out of the Com-pany's fervice, and have fhewn, how they fucceffivclyIhifted from one ground to another. Firil they imputeto me an exprefs requejl of leave to rejtgn When thewords of my letter are found not to warrant this allegation, they thea refort to an implied requejt. But whenthis fecond refource fails, they go the length of infi-nuating againft me a dijhonourable relinquijbment of myduty, and to eftablifh a belief of this withhold one ma-terial part of the circumftances, which attended myleaving Pondicherry and expreffing an intention toreturn to Europe, and mifreprefent another part ofthefe circumftances. Their laft refource is imputing to

BM


27/78

( '7 )ttie an acquiefcence in their injurioufly holding me outof the fervice ; merely becaufe I abftained from appli-cations to them, and was filent, for the fliort period ofiix weeks partially felecled out of my conduct for manymonths.But one point flill remains to be cleared up ; and

that is my atlual return to England ; for it may be faid,that, though the Board of Fort St. George might beprecipitate and premature in conftruing my intention toreturn into a refignation, yet as I now have executedthat intention, I therefore fall within the Company'sletter to Madrafs of the 4th of March, 1778. By theorder here referred to it was refolved, that every civilfervant or military officer, who fhould hereafter returnfrom India on account of his own private affairs, or onany other account, except the reeovery of health,where it fhouici be duly certified, that the meafure wasneceflary for the prefervation of life or to enable tiepartyto difcharge the duty of bis Jlatlcn, ftiall be considered astotally out of the fervice. But I conceive, that my cafeis by no means within the reach of this order. I mightfay, that it would be hard to held me within it ; be-caufe, my letter expreffing an intention to return toEngland, was written and fhewn to Major Stevens in thecamp on the 2oth of Aug. 1778, being t-ico flays lefort no-tification of the order at Madrafs, and was actually read toGen. Munro on the 24th, being only two days after. How-ever, I am not driven to depend on a relaxation from theorder on this account -, for I conceive, that the order is inD ne


28/78

( '8 )no refpect applicable to me. My intention to re-turn to England, as I have before repeatedly Hated,originated from my not being put upon duty and fer-vice ; and my letter, which declared my intentionsof return, in referring to fevere difappointments andheavy expences, fufficiently indicated fuch was thecaufe, and that my object in returning was to enforcemy being employed. This I conceive brings the inten-tion ofmy return within that part of the exception of theorder, which exempts a return, where it is neceflary tothe difcbarge of the pa ty's duty in his ftation ; and there-fore had I executed this intention before any thing fur-ther intervened, it would have been an inequitable in-terpretation of my conduct to have held it a refigna-tion within the order. But it is not neceflary that Ifhould reft my objection to being affected by the orderhere; for the real caufe of my return was attended witha material addition of circumftances. Afrer having de-clared my intention of returning, a vacancy in my lineoccurred by the death of Major Scevens, who was kill-ed at thefiegeof Pondicherry; and I infhntly renouncedniy firft intention of leaving India, and claimed myprerenfions to the fucceflion, adding how much I washurt, that my letter fignifying my defign to return toEngland (hould be deemed a refignation. This appli-cation appears by my letter to the Selefl-committee ofFort St. George, of the igth of October 1778. Butthe anlwer of the Board was, that they confidered meas having defired to refign the fervice, and I in vain re-filled this confuiiclion by a fecond letter ftrongly re-

monftrating


29/78

19 )monftrating againft it, the Board's fecretary returningfor anfwer, " that they looked upon me to all intents** and purpofes as out of the fervice." However, I ftillperfevered in my application for being put upon duty,the moment a new occafionprefented itfelf. For, by myletter of the i4th of December 1778, I again urgedthe Board to depart from the idea of confidering me asout of the fervice, when I understood that an expedi-tion againft the French Fort at Mahee was refolvedupon ; and, in order to enforce every argument for em-ploying me, my letter alfo adverted to the ekfeaceltfsJiateof the works at Madrafs, and the Jlate of the corps ofengineers, which appeared to be fuch as would ren-der my fervices abfolutely neceflary. My reafon forreferring to the Hate of the corps of engineerswas my having been informed, that the 8tle6t committeehad written, home for a fupply of officers in that line.But this laft application was fuffered to remain unanfwer-ed for three weeks ; and when I wrote again for an ex-planation of the Board's intentions concerning me, Iwas told by their letter of the i8th of January 1779,that they had fully determined my cafe ; that my conduitcould be confidered in no other light than as a reiigna-tion; and that, if I had any circumftances to reprefcnt,they defired me to addrefs them to the Company. Thisletter feemed to be a complete refufal of all further fer-vices from me. As fuch I for a time confidered it.However, that no pretence might be left for imputing to

me


30/78

/

( 2 )me a declination of fervice, ivhilft I remained at Ma-drafs, 1 once more applied myfelf, for redrefs of the inju-ry from the Board's deeming me out of the fervice,through the interpofition of Sir Eyre Coote, who thenhappened to be at Madrafs. But after various folicita-tions through this channel, I found the Board had pro-ceeded too far to rerraft; and that as Sir Eyre once ex-prefled himfelf in converfation, I could hope for no re-lief except from the Company at home, From thefe fadsfubfequent to my letterexprcffing an intention to leave In-dia in confequenceof achangeof circumftances, it appears,that I repeatedly renounced my firft intention of cominghome ; that I repeatedly made a tenderofmy fervices ; thatI was always repulfed with a declaration of being out of thefervice; and that I did not quit Madrafs till I was told, thatit was in vain to trouble the Board with applications for a

change of their refolutions refpeSing me, and that if Ithought myfelf aggrieved my only remedy was to return toEngland for redrefs. But is it poflible that a return homeunder fuch circumftances mould be a refignation withinthe Company's order ? That order was aimed againft per-fons aflua'ly on duty, and quitting that duty voluntarilyfor their own convenience. But I was not upon any dmty^and my retur.i was compvljive ; for the Board at Madrafsby declaring me out of the fervice, not only deprived meboth of the emoluments of an officer, but rendered itimpoffible for me to fucceed to any official character, and

fufpended the performance of all my functionsas


31/78

( 21 )as a fervant of the Company. This brings my cafe fullywithin the words of the exception in the order againft returning home ; for in the fituation, into which I was thusforced, I was abfolutely disqualified from difchargingany duty as an officer, and the Seleft-committee havingperemptorily refufed

to retract from thisdifqualificationof me, I had no refource to be relieved from it, other than

coming home, and appealing to the Company for re-drefs.

I have now, Gentlemen, made every obfervation vvhvhfeems requisite to proving, that I am ftill in the Compa-ny's fervice ; and consequently that the refolution of thelate Court of Directors, which declines reftoring me,proceeds on a miftaken idea of my iituation.But in a further letter, with which I propofe to trouble

you on the fubjeft of my cafe, I lhall endeavour to fliew,that even though I really fliould be deemed out of theCompany's fervice, yet under the fpecial circumftancesof my cafe, I am worthy of being reftored ; and thatneither the constructive refignation objected to me, norany other matter recorded or alledged againft me, oughtto difappoint my anxious wifhes in that refpedt.

Gentlemen, with great refpect,I have the honor to be,

Your nicft obedient,And moft humble fervant,

Juondon, Dec, 5, 1781. GEORGE BURGHALL.


32/78


33/78

At a COURT of DIERCTOHS, held oriFriday the 21 ft of Dec. 1781,

TH E Committee of Correfpondence inport, dated this day, fubmitting it as theirOpinion, " That Major George Burghall, fromthe fcarcity of able and experienced Officers

in the engineering line at Madras; the Inge-nuity he has lately difcovered in forming a Planfor Counter-Mines, and the Hardships andDifficulties he has already fuftained in theCompany's Service, be employed as an Engi-neer on the Coaft of Choromandel."

And Extracts from the Fort St. George Let-ters and Confutations refpetting Major Burghallbeing read,

It was moved, " That this Court doth agree" in Opinion with the faid Committee."And the Queftion on the faid Motion, beingput by the Ballet,It patted in the Negative.

Examined Peter MicbelL

Addrtfied to Major George Burghall,


34/78


35/78

SECONDLETTERMAJOR BURGHALL

TO THE HONOURABLE THE

COURT of DIRECTORSEAST-INDIA COMPANY.


36/78


37/78


38/78

C 4 )of the fervice. Accordingly, I now proceed to makegood this promife. Indeed, I had hitherto flatteredmyfelf, that fuch a purfuance of the fubjett of mycafe 'Would bt rendered unnecejfary by an immediate re-drefs of my grievances. Certainly too, there were ap-pearandes which juftified me in this expectation. Theletter, of which the prefent one is a continuance,fo far attracted your notice and attention, that youwere pleafed to refer it to a committee of your body ;and this Committee was fo impreffed with the idea itgave of the injuries and fufferings I have experienced,that they came to a refolution in my favour, by whichit was recommended, that I mould be employed as anEngineer on the coaft of Coromandel.* But, unhap-hapily for me, when it was propofed to the wholebody of Directors to confirm the Report containingthis refolution, and the queftion was ballotted for,there appeared a majority againft it ; and thus fituated,I am* At a Court of Direrors, held on Friday, the zifl of Decem-

ber, 1781. The Committee of Correfpondence, in a Report, datedthis day, fubmitting it as their opinion, " That Major George" Burghall, from the ftarcity of able and experienced cffictrs in tbe" engineering line at Madras, tbe ingenuity be bat lately difc'.-vered in" forming a planfor counter- mir.et, and tbe barajhtpi and difficultiet" be bat already fuftained in tbe Company* i fir-v'ue, be employed as an" engineer on the coaft of Coromandel." And extracts fromthe Fort St. George Letters and Confutations refpefting MajorBurghall b ing read :

It was moved, That this Court doth agree in opinion with the" faid Committee."And the queftion on the faid motion being put by the ballot, it paf-

fed in the negative, [Examined, P. MICH EH..Note. Tbe above Report Joes by no means csnviy ajujl idea of Major

furgball't plan ofAfril% 1781.


39/78

( 5 )I am compelled to requeft your farther patience, whilltI fhortly ftate thofe other reafons on my behalf, whichare requifite to complete the defign avowed in my let-ter heforementioned.When I undertook to confider my cafe on the fuppo-

fition that my conduct at Madras might amount toa refignation, my purpofe was, frft, to call yourminds to a confideration of the peculiar circumflancesof hardfliip under which I acted whilfl I was underthe direction of the Fort St. George Prefidency; andthence to infer an apology for any error, precipitancy,or indifcretion, which may be attributed to me. Se-condly, to relieve my character from any unfavourable Vimpreffions which may have been created agaioft meby the altercations which enfued between the FortSt. George Prefidency and me, from my being ap-pointed to the charge of the works at Trichinopoly,which is the only other topic from which my enemiescan offer the leaft femblance of objection to my y.conduct. I mall therefore make thefe two heads ofconfideration the fubject of the prefent letter.

I.

In refpect to the hardfhips by which I was ag-grieved whilft at Madras, I may truly fay, that during the whole period of my being under their con-troul, I was diflinguifhed by every neglect, and everymortification, which an oppreffive exertion of powercould inflict to difappoint me of the fruits of my com-miffion, and to provoke me into fuch a conduct as

might


40/78

might bedeemed a relinquifhment of the Company'sfervice ; and fo uniform were the three fucceffive ad-

jniniftrations of Mr. Stratton, Mr. Whitehill and SirThomas Rumbold, in this refpecl, that I can fcarcedifcriminate between them.When I arrived at Madras with my new commiffion,

as Major and Director of Engineers, which was inSeptember, 1776, the revolution, in confequence ofwhich Lord Pigot was difpoflefled of his governmentand confined as a ftate-prifoner, had been recently ac-complifhed ; and, to my great furprife, I found Mr.Stratton acting as Governor in his room. That thisrevolution was a novelty, which ilruck me with hor-ror, is what I do not wiih to conceal. I did not pre-tend to enter into the merits of the points, which hadprevioufly been the fubjeft of difpute between thecontending parties ; nor do I now prefume to formany judgement upon them. To me it was fufficientto be convinced, that the imprifonment of Lord Pigot,and an aflumption of his powers, were at all events mea-fures equally contrary to law and hazardous to the in-terefts of the Company ; and, when I heard all thecircumftances of this famous tranfa&ion related, Icould not bat think unfavourably of thofe, who werethe chief aftors in it. Imprifoning a Governor is atany rate a violent meafure, and fuch as can only beexcufed by the moft urgent public necelfity. But inthe cafe of Lord Pigot, it was no fmall aggravation,that if the interefts and faf-ny of the fettlement hadbeen the line of condaft to the party in oppofition to

Lord


41/78

( 7 )Lord Pigot, they muft, as I conceived, have preferreda temporary acquiefcence in his claims over them*however unreafonable, and waiting for relief from theCompany, to the illegal and very dangerous expertjneut of complete revolution, more efpecially wheait was to be effected againft a Governor of a characterfo popular and fo highly refpeclable as that of LordPigot. Thefe my fentiments of that affair werefoon known to the new government of Fort St. George,for though, for the fake of public peace, and in orderto preferve the fettlement from the horrors of a civilwar, I was, with other officers of rank, willing to ac-quiefce in the aftumed authority of the new govern-ment till there mould be an opportunity of reftoringthe legal one without hazarding the affairs of theCompany, yet I could not prevail upon myfelf whollyto conceal, that I was no friend to the violent mea-fures which had been adopted againft the legal Go-vernor. My fentiments of the affair therefore foonbecame apparent to the party which had difplaced andimprifoned Lord Pigot ; and from the moment I wasknown to think unfavourably of the change, it feemsto have been a determined point, that I mould feeltheir refentment on every occafion and in every formthe oppreffive hand of power could take advantage ofwithout danger to itfelf; and, on this fyftem of perfe-cution, I was continually harraffed for the period ofnear three years, being the whole time of my Hay onthe coaft of Coromandel. lam


42/78

( 8 )I am very unwilling, Gentlemen, to tire you witha new ftatement of all the flights, all the negle&s,

all the difappointments, and all the injuries, whichthe Board of Fort St. George heaped upon me,more efpecially as moft of them have been already re-prefented to you, and are to be found either in theprinted Cafe, with which I troubled the Court of Di-redlors foon after my arrival from Madras, or in thepapers in the Appendix to that Cafe. Yet it appearsto me fo material to remind you here of the moft ftri-king inftances of the ill treatment I experienced, thatI cannot, in juftice to myfelf, altogether decline therepetition ; but previoufly to which I will beg leave,in few words, to mention the nature of my militaryfituation before I was fent out on the Madras efta-blifhment.

I was originally an officer in the King's artillery, ha-ving been brought up a cadet at Woolwich ; and forfome years ferved his Majefty in that regiment both athome and abroad. In confideration of this circumftance,when I left the King's fervice for that of the Company,the firft appointment I received from the latter wasthat of captain-lieutenant in their artillery. J wasnext appointed director of engineers in Bengal, andafterwards chief engineer and commandant of artilleryat Bencoolen, under which latter appointment I wasintitled to a feat in the Council of Fort Marlborough,with emoluments to the extent of about 750!. a year.Having declined, however,

this laftappointment, with|hepermiffionofthehonourableDirelors,Ivvas at length,

in


43/78

( 9 )in February, 1776, appointed a director of engineers Jon the Madras eitablifhment, with rank as major nextto Major Stevens the fenior direclor of engineers under.the Fort St. George Prefidency. In order, alfo, to fe-cure to me the full and immediate benefit of this ap -pointment, the general letter from the Company, in **which it was notified to the Fort St. George Prefidency,reprefented, that I had experienced great bardjhips qndJrffisin. the Company's fervice ; adding, that when avacancy happened by death, or other removal of thpofficers above me, that I was to fucceed as full major,.with the pay and emoluments annexed to fuch ftation. A

With this commiffion on the Madras eitablimment,and with fo ilrong and pointed a recommendation ofme by the Company's letter,.! had flattered myfelfthat I mould be favourably received at Madras, andthat there was no danger of my being kept out of theemployment belonging to my ftation and rank. Butmy arrival fo foon after the unhappy affair of LordPigot's imprifonment, and my known difapprobationof themeafures againft that moft able and difiinguL'hedfervant of the Company, excited fuch a diflike of mein the minds of the members of the new government,that I foon found the recommendation of the Companyat home to be of no avail, when it clafhed with theviews and inclinations of their .fervants abroad.The firft injury I received from the Madras Prefi-

dency occurred during Mr. Stratton's adminiftration.It originally affected the honour and rights of thewhole corps of engineers, but finally v/as jpaade .to

JJ operate


44/78

operate principally againft me.- By order, dated 24 De-cember, 1776, which was only two or three months

after my arrival on the coaft, Mr. Stratton and theCouncil of Fort St. George appointed Major Cooke ofthe infantry, commandant at Madras, in preferenceto Lieutenant-colonel Rofs the chief engineer and di-rector of the works at Madras, and myfelf, though bothof us were fenior in rank. This was a direct invafionof the rights of the corps of engineers, as afcertainedby an order from the Court of Directors, dated 25th ofMarch 1774, which declared that engineers mouldtake rank and poft with the reft of the army, and hadbeen confirmed in general orders at Madras on the 25thof February, 1775, after having been referred to Ben-gal; and it gave fo much offence, that Lieutenant-colonel Rofs, though not underftood to be in the leaftindifpofed to the new government, remonftrated againftthe meafure by letter to the board. It was not poffiblewholly to juftify fuch a fuperceflion and degradation ofthe fuperior officers in the corps of engineers. There-fore the Board apologized for the ftep, by ifluing a de-claration, that they did not mean in any refpedl to af-fect any right of the corps of engineers ; but theydid not retreat from the appointment they had givento Major Cooke. On the contrary, they aggravated theoriginal injury and affront, by fabricating as a groundof excufe, that the fervice of Colonel Rofs would bewanted Jbortly e!/ewhere, and that my fervice waswanted at Trichinopoly, to which they accordingly or-dered me. The fubterfuge contained in this after-

thought


45/78


46/78

( I* )

corps of engineers. But, though both appointmentsbecame aclually vacant, fuch was the addrefs of myenemies at the Madras preiidency, that I was defeatedof the fucceflion to each. From the former theBoard of Fort St. George excluded me, by fendingfor Major Stevens from Tanjour, and by prevailingupon him, by very urgent irttreaties, to relinquijb hisJefign of leaving India, and to ftay till the return ofColonel Rofs, or at leajl for eighteen months. Of thelatter the Madras Board difappointed me by a meafureftill more extraordinary ; for though they appointedMajor Stevens to the charge of the works at Madras,yet they continued to him the allowances of direftor atTanjour, and committed the aftual care of them toCaptain Dugood. This double difappointment ex-tremely mortified me, when I f.rft heard of the fkilfularrangement of which it was a confequence. But I hadnot a perfect idea of the extent of the injury to metill long after, when it was explained to me by MajorStevens, who, on my affecHngly reprefenting to himmy fituation and treatment in the corps of engineers,honourably and confcientioufly confefTed, that he hadlong entertained thoughts of returning to England forliis health, and Jkcidd certainly have gone if be had notbeen prejfed to ftc>y in manner before Jlated.

Another injury which was done me whilft Mr."Whitehill was president of Fort St. George, arofe frompreferring a junior officer to a fhare of the revenue ofthe Company's lands inflead of me. This happenedon the departure cf Colonel Rofs for England ; for by

that


47/78

( '3 )that event there was a vacant fliare ; but notwith-ftanding my applications, it was given to Major Mar-cell.

Such were the injuries and hardfhips I fuffered pre-vious to the adminiftration of Sir Thomas Rumbold.But when he arrived to take the government of Fort

St. George, I confoled myfelf for paft neglefts and fu-perceffions by the hope that the influence of the friendsto the revolution of government on Lord Pigot's im-prifonment would no longer operate with effeft againftme. As to Mr. Whitehill's conduct as prefident,though he brought with him a vote of the Company,condemning the revolution in very unreferved terms,yet his actions made it apparent that he was no friendto thofe who had avowed their diflike of the meafureshe was fent to counteract. I hoped for a different andbetter line of condudl from Sir Thomas Rumbold, andthat he would at leaft fteer an equal courfe betweenthe parties, into which the affair of Lord Pigot hadunhappily divided the Settlement. But fo far at leaftas refpefted myfelf, my hopes were foon diffipated bythe accumulation of new hardfhips and injuries.The firft difappointment I was mortified with, after

the commencement of Sir Thomas Rumbold's adminif-tration, was the refufing to me the appointment ofdirector of engineers with a detachment fent on an ex-pedition to Poonah, after a declaration that I was to bethe perfon. The fad was thus: In March, 1778,the Prefidency of Bombay follicited a body of troopsfrom Madras, to affift in the then projected expedition

to


48/78

( 14 )td Poonah. On this occafion I applied to the Boardof Fort St. George, through Sir Heftor Munro, to befent with the detachment for Bombay, and he in-formed me, that my offer was accepted, and that Iwas to have a brevet commiffion as lieutenant-colonelfor this particular fervice, I being at that time in rank,with the army on the Madras eftablifhment, third ma-jor in order of fucceflion. But I was afterwards toldby Sir He&or, that I could not go ; becaufe MajorHenry Marcell, who 'was of the infantry, and orderedforthat fervice alfo, 'was a junior major to me.

This difappointment of me, in refpeft to the Poonahexpedition, was foon followed with a breach of promifein refpedl to the charge of the works at Tanjour. InMay, 1778, I waited upon Sir Thomas Rumbold andSir Heftor Munro at their own defire. They both af-fured me, that I fhould be immediately appointed tothe charge of the works at Tanjour, which is known tobe the fecond ftation in point of importance, for anengineer under the Madras Prefidency ; and, Sir Heftorafkinghow foon I could be ready to fet off, I mentionedthe next day, upon which he declared, that my ap-pointment mould be made out the firft day of there beinga Board. But notwithftanding all this, the appoint,ment ofme to Tanjour did not atlaft take place; and,as an apology for this treatment, Sir He&or informedme, that if a field-officer, junior in rank to me, mouldbe appointed to command the Englifti troops in garri-fon at Tanjour, whilft I was carrying on the worksthere, it luould be the caufe of an interference on ac-

count


49/78

( 15 )fount ofpriority of rank. Nothing could be more dif-heartening than fuch a reafon for departing from thepromife of this appointment. On the one hand, if itwas the real motive for the refufal, excluiive of theimplied difrefpect to the whole corps of engineers, itfurnilhed an eternal objection to my being appointeddirector of the works at any fortification cf importance.On the other, if it was a mere device to conceal thereal motive, then it proved that there was no feriousintention of employing me, but that I was ftill to bedeluded by a feries of pretences, in order to excludeme from all fervice in my character of Director of En-gineers.

Thefe two fucceeding difappointments, with acontinuation of the inj ury, from fuffering an officer ofjunior rank to have a mare of the revenue in exclufionof me, notwithftanding new applications from me tobe relieved in this

refpect, operatedfo

forciblyon mymind as to induce a perfuafion, that the influence,

which was fecretly exerted againft me by the friends ofthe recent revolution, mufl be [invincible. Aftertherefore reflecting on my hopelefs fituation, I formedthe refolution of returning to Europe, in order to re-prefent to the Court of Directors, how unattended-to my commiffion and their particular inductionsconcerning me had been ; and through their inter-pofition, to obtain a redrefs of the confequential in-juries. On this idea I, in June 1778, actually con-tracted for a paffage to England in the Latham India-man by way of China. But before the failing of this

fhip,


50/78


51/78

pliedhis place at the commencement of the fiege ofPondicherry, and till it was convenient to him to come

and aft for himfelf ; and though I confented to do thiswithout pay or emolument of any fort ; yet the Boardof Fort St. George was ftill fo unmoved by my fitua-tion, that they fuffered Major Stevens to leave Ma-dras, when there was not one engineer left to fucceedhim in fuperintending the works there, without hold*ing out to me either that charge or any other fervicewhatever.

Thefe new injuries convinced me that it would beVain arid fruitlefs to wait longer for any arrangementin my favour. Seeing alfo, by Major Stevens's arri-val at Pondicherry, that I was not only without anyofficial iituation or any confidence repofed in me, butperfectly ufelefs, and treated with every flight whicficould tend to make me contemptible to the reft of thearmy, my patience became exhaufted, and I renewedmy intention of returning to England for redrefs ofmy grievances, and wrote the letter expreffive of it tothe Fort St. George prefidency, which was afterwardsconftrued, and is ftill urged againft me, as a refigna-tiori.

Scarce had I made known to the Fort St. Georgeprefidency my intention of returning to England, be-fore I difcovered a new inftance of their ill treatmentof me. When Major Stevens left Madras to go tothe fiege of Pondicherry, the Board forefaw the pro-bability of my return to the prefidency ; for they knewthat I was at Pondicherry as' a' volunteer merely toC fupply


52/78

( 18 )

fupply the place of Major Stevens till he Could attendhimfelf, and were apprized, almoft immediately afterMajor Stevens's arrival at cainp, (which was on the17th of Auguft, 1778,) that I had declared my inten-tion of leaving it. They were alfo aware that MajorStevens's abfence from Madras would leave that placewithout one engineer to fuperintend the importantworks which were then carrying on at that defencelefsplace ; and therefore that, a* well in this refpeft, asalfo in refpeft of my being without any appointment,my pretenfion to the charge of the works at Madraswould become almoft invincible, becaufe indifpenfa-ble. In fuch a fituation it required uncommon artificeand management to difappoint me. But my enemiesproved themfelves fully adequate to the tafk. WhilftI was preparing to leave the camp, the feleft Com-mittee of Fort St. George meditated the means of ex-cluding me from all hope of fucceffion to the charge ofthe works at Madras : with which view they even at-tempted to fill the vacancy there before my arrival.On this plan, they on the 24th of Auguft 1778,(which was only a week after Major Stevens's arrivalat camp,) difpatched a letter to Sir Heftor Munro ;in which, after reprefenting how highly necefiary itwas to have fome perfon to attend to the fortificationsat Madras, and that they had not one engineer left to fit-perintend the works, they defired Sir Hector Munro todirect Major Stevens to fend an officer of that corps toMadras. At the fame time care was taken, in fomeother way, to make it known, that not I, but Captain

Manic,


53/78

X 19 )Maule my junior in rank, was the perfon theywilhed to have fent ; and fo early was this intentioncommunicated to Captain Maule, -that he left thecamp without waiting for his appointment, and ar-rived at Madras within twelve hours after me. How-ever the plan did not immediately fucceed ; for SirHeftor Munro did not receive the letter from the feleftCommittee till I had actually left the camp ; andtherefore, inftead of complying with the requeft madeto him, he wrote for anfwer to Madras, that hehoped my being there would be fufficient. But this fud-den requisition of an officer to fuperintend the worksat Madras being a fecret to me at the time, I perfe-vered in the meafure of delivering to the Board ofFort St. George the letter containing my refolution toreturn to England. Confequently they were furnimedwith a pretence for declining Sir Heflor Munro's re-commendation of me ; and accordingly, under the co-lour of my letter, and on the ground that, having inpurfuance of it granted me leave to go home, theycould not appoint me, they renewed their applicationto Sir Hector for another perfon ; which was imme-diately followed with his and Major Stevens's nomi-nation of Captain Maule. There were alfo fome far-ther circumftances, which aggravated the deceptioustreatment of me in this affair. Originally, CaptainMaule arrived at Madras without any llatement of illhealth, from the commander in chief, to explain thecaufe of it j and I am perfuaded that he was fent toAnticipate me. But when Sir Heclor faw, from theC 2 Board's


54/78

( 20 )

Board's letter declining .to name me, what their viewswere, Captain Maule's health was reprefented as thereafon of his leaving the camp. Afterwards, however,both the reafon of the Board's fending for any engi-neer to Madras, and the caufe of Captain Maule's go-ing there, were made apparent ; for as foon as theBoard had proceeded the length of declaring my letterto them a resignation, it was difcovered that no engi-neer was neceflary to fuperintend the works at Madras,and that Captain Maule was well enough to bear field

:he fadt being that Captain Maule returned toduty in the camp before Pondicherry within a fewhours after the Board had notified to me, by their letterof the 5th of September, that they confidered my let-ter of the 24th of Auguft as a requeft to refign thefervke. If this farther ill treatment of me is confi-dered, it will appear to inclqde many ftriking paflages.

Till I was on the point of returning to Madras, theBoard faw no neceffity of having an engineer to fuper-intend the works there. But when that is reduced toa certainty, the importance of having one is imme-diately difcovered, and a fudden requifition is made toSir Hetor M \inro, fo fecreted from me, and otherwifefo managed, as to raife up Captain Maule for my ex-cluiipn. Again ; when from the priority of my ar-rival at Madras, Sir Hedlor is found to recommend meto the charge of the works at Madras, then my ownletter, into which I had been provoked by want of em-ployment and their ill treatment, is ufedasa colour fordenying it to me. Next, to complete my exclufion


55/78

from the works at Madras, Captain Maule is ftated tohave left camp on account of his ill health, and tohave been on that account fent to Madras ; and underthis idea he obtains charge of the works there. Butthe moment my exclufion is perfected, the Board re-verts to the idea of thinking an engineer at Madras un-neceflary, and Captain Maule fo recovers his health asto return to camp. Is it poflible to account for thischangeable and accommodating fort of conduct of theBoard at Madras upon any other idea, than that theydid not wiih to have Mr. Btnfield, the contra&orfor theworks at Madras, fuperintended by any engineer (blong as it could be avoided; and that at all eventsthey determined, that I mould not be the perfon toexercife the controul arifmg from fuch a fuperinten-dence ? Is it not apparent, that throughout this bu-fmefs I was cruelly overreached ? Is it not demonftra-ble, from Sir Hector Munro's letter recommending meto the charge of the works at Madras, that he did notconfider my leaving the camp at Pondicherry, or theletter, which he knew I was to deliver on my arrival atMadras and had feen, as any juft orreafonable groundfor not naming me to the charge of the works at Ma-dras ? and could they entertain a doubt, but that Ifhould have been eager to have receded from my inten-tion of going to England, and to have accepted fo im-portant a fituation, if the matter had been explainedto me, and they had made me a tender of it }What followed this exclufion of me from being Di-

of the works at Madras, and this unjuft con*itruftioi)


56/78

( 22 )ftrution of my letter of the 24th of Augufl into a re-fignation of the fervice, is fo much enlarged upon inmy former printed letter to you, Gentlemen, that Iwill here do little more than bring to your remem-brance, that before I adually left Madras on my re-turn to England, I repeatedly made a tender of myfervices as often as any vacancy prefented itfelf. Themoment I heard of Major Steven s's being killed atPondicherry, I waved my intention of going to Eng-land and offered to ferve in his room ; and, when I.was told by the Board that it could not be, and that Iwas out of the fervice, I repeatedly complained of theirfo conftruing my letter of the 24th of Anguft, andftrongly denied all intention to refign. I again tenderedmyfelf to the feleft Committee, the moment I knewof their defign to lay fiege to Fort Mahe. But theyftill rejected me on the ground of being out of the fer-vice ; and though I made feveral farther attempts toremove the difficulty from this conftruflion, all was tono purpofe ; fo that at laft I was driven into the meafureofreturning to England, by the molt perfect evidence,that any longer ftay at Madras muft terminate in theruin of myfelf and family.

Here, Gentlemen, I conclude my detail of the in,juries which I received from the Fort St. George Prefi-dency ; and I hope that my manner of ftating them willenable you to judge, not only of the extent of mygrievances, but alfo of the fort of influence underwhich this perfecution of me was carried on, during

the


57/78

the three fucceffive adminiftrations of Mr. Stratton,Mr. Whitehill and Sir Thomas Rumbold.The refult is, that I was firft induced to write theletter of the 24th of Auguft, which expreffed my in-tention of returning to England, by continual exclu-fions from every fervice which the courfe of eventsprefented in my favour ; and that afterwards, whenon new events 1 was anxious to relinquifh my firft de-fign, I was forced into the meafure of actually return-ing, by being peremptorily and repeatedly told, that Iwas no longer in the Company's fervice. Thus too,upon the whole, I continued near three years under theMadras Prefidency, without being able to obtain anyappointment in conformity to my rank and commifiion,except in the fingle inftance of my being named to theinjlgnificant and nominal Jiation of Trichinopoly,which was given me for the fake of difappointing meof the real and important charge of the works at Ma .dras and Tanjore.

Under thefe circumftances of provocation and 111treatment, Ifubmit to you, Gentlemen, that thougheither the letter I wrote to the Fort St. George Prefi-dency to notify my intention to leave the coaft, or myfubfequent actual return to England, mould be capa-ble of being drained into a refigaation of the Compa-ny's fervice ; a conilruftion, to which, for the rea-fons in my former printed letter, I can on no accountaccede ; yet I truft that there is enough to influenceyou to decline infilling on fuch a rigorous interpreta-

tion;


58/78

tiofl ; and, if1 really am out of the ferwice, to re-inflateme by a vote ofreftoration.

I have; only one other faft to Hate in refpeft to therefignation objeded to me. It is, that notwithfland-ing the decided terms, in which Sir Thomas Rumbold,Mr. Whitehill, and the other members of the Fort St.George Prefidency, infifted on that conftruftion of myconduct againft me, notwithftanding their long andobftinate adherence to the fame conftru&iori, and theirrepeated refufal of my tenders of fervice on that ac-count; and notwithftanding alfo the confcionfnefs,that in their correfpondence with the Company athome, they not only had treated me as out of the fer-vice, but had grofsly mifreprefented the circumftancesunder which I left Pondicherry, and thereby had injti-rioujly converted it into a defertion of duty of the moftexceptionable kind ; yet, when they found me on thepoint of going on-board a fhip for Europe, attemptswere made on their part to difTuade me from that mea-

^ fare. My paffage had been paid for ; my family wasembarked on-board the Gatton India-fhip, then inMadras xoad; and this fhip, .having received her dif-patches on-board, was under fignals for my coming off,At this late moment, the adjutant-general, ColonelBurrowes, came to acquaint me that the Governor and

y^ General defired to fee me immediately. I went tothem fucceflively without hefitation, relying on Mr.Tafwell, the matter-attendant, for the flay of the fhipon my behalf. My firft conference was with Sir Tho-mas Rumbold j but it gave me no fatisfaftion, for the

inducements


59/78

inducements he fuggefted for my not quitting Indiaconiifted merely of general promifes, and an affuranceof the Board's fending home the Court of Directors theJlrongeft letters on my behalf, I next waited upon SirHector Munro. The General affured me, if I wouldftay, of the ilrongeft letters to the Court of Directors,and to all his friends, in my behalf. For this I madethe due acknowledgements; but I concluded with ob-ferving, that my ill treatment had been carried to an.extremity, and that the language of Sir Thomas Rum-bold, and the other members of the felect Committee,had been fo peremptory againft me, and my fundswere fo deeply affected by paft injuries, that it wasnow too late for me to retract on the flngle groundof general affurances. At both of thefe feparate con -.ferences, with Sir Thomas Rumbold and Sir HectorMunro, Col. Burrowes was prefent. How inconlift-ent is this conduct, of Sir Thomas Rumbold and SirHector Munro, with the report of my character andconduct by Sir Thomas Rumbold and the felect Com-mittee of Fort St. George to the Court of Directors !If their report is to be credited, I had deferted my dutyand refigned the Company's fervice in the critical mo-ment of action, and was remitted home as undefirvinrof any farther connection with the company. But ac-cording to thefe propofals from the Governor and Ge-neral for my ftay in India, Iwas a perfon worthy of be-ing reprefented to the Company in the Jirongeji andjnojl favorable terms,

and one of fo much confequenceas to be folicited not to remove myfelf out of the reachD of


60/78

of farther fervice, As too, this offer hy Sir ThomasRumbold and Sir Hedor Munro to reprefent me inftrong and favorable terms to the Company, and thiseffort by them to prevent my leaving India, were fub-fequent to every topic of objection raifed againft meby Sir Thontas Rambold and the felecb Committee,was it not an implied conceffion, fo far as Sir Thomasand the General are concerned, that the previous unfa-vorable reprefentations of me lucre improper and riot jit to Bettdbered to ?

II.

I now come to the differences with the Fort St. Georgefrefidency, in confequence of my being appointed Di-reclor of the works ofTrichinopoly, which I take to bethe only ground of objection to my conduct, exclufiveof the fuppofed refignation urged againft me.

This matter has never yet been formally obje&ed a-gainff me; nor did it form any part of the grounds onwhich die Prefidency of Fort St. George profeffed ei-ther to deny my applications for employment,, or toconfider me as having refig'ned the fervice. But,

r>y from the careful manner in which all the extractsof Fort St. George confutations, relative to my ap-pointment to the Trichinopoly ftation, have been fe-le&ed and brought together, 1 conclude that my ene-mies have called the attention of the Company to itf

* with a view to excite prejudices againft me. It there-fore behoves me to fay fomething on this head.

I have


61/78

I have already had occafion to ftate, that my appoint-ment to Trichinopoly was part of a fcheme devifed byMr. Stratton's adminftration to difappoint me of theMadras and Tanjour ftations. The fadt was, that nofortifications were carrying on at Trichinopoly;and, as there was no duty for me as a director of en-gineers, to be employed in at that place, fo therewas no ferious deiire of my going to it. However,left I mould be miftaken in this refpeft, I enquired ofMr. Stratton perfonally, and alfo of fuch of the othermembers of his adminiftration as were then at Madras,if there was any thing to be done at Trichinopoly; towhich their anfwer was in the negative, and that if Ipleafed I might ftay at Madras. I was alfo confirmed inthe idea of there being no fervice for me to perform atTrichinopoiy, as well by the Nabob of Arcot's fecondfon Aumeer ul Omrah, who was his governor of theplace, as by the Nabob himfelf. After thefe explana-tions, I thought myfelf fnfficiently warranted to be ab-fent from Trichinopoly ; and as I confidered the ap-pointment of me to that ftation, both as calculated toinjure me by keeping rne out of fervice really impor-.tant, and as coming from an illegal government, andwas therefore anxious to evince my diflike of the appointment, and to avoid giving efFeft to it ; I withouthefitation continued at Madras. But in the latter endof June 1777, which was near fix months after my be-ing named for Trichinopoly, Brigadier-general Stuartthought fit to report my abfence from that place to theBoard, and he complained of it for being without hisD 2 leave,


62/78

( 28 )

yleave as commander in chief. This was followed bymy calling upon the General, and the interview v/asattended with fome difagreeable circumftances; he onthe one hand, being jealous of my not fully acknow-ledging him as the legal commander in chief, and there-fore claiming apology ; and I on the other, from an opi-nion unfavorable as well to his conduft in the prece-ding revolution as to that meafure itfelf, not beingdifpofed to make any conceffions to him which could

* be avoided, and therefore declining it. In fhort, thedifference on this conference became fo ferious, and theGeneral was fo offended with fome warm expreffionswhich I retorted upon him in the prefence of Mr.Stratton, and which he might have wifhed had not beenheard by any but himfelf, that he ordered me under an

y arreft, and afterwards ftated the whole matter, exceptthe words I had offended him by, in a letter, by wayof complaint to the Prefidency. But before the arreft,and alfo before his letter againft me to the Board, I hadaddrefied and prefented one to them againft him; andin it he was charged with advifing or confenting to theorder appointing Major Cooke commandant at Madrasover Lieutenant-Col. Rofs and myfelf, his feniors inrank, which conduct, tending to a fubverfion of therights of the corps of Engineers, as exprefsly afcertain*ed by an order from England, and confirmed in generalorders at Madras, I reprefented to be contrary to mili-tary difcipline, and likely to involve the Company'smilitary affairs in confufion. On confidering thefemu-$ual charges, the council declined proceeding

on mycharge


63/78

( 29 )

charge againft General Stuart ; but ordered a court*martial againft me on the following articles deliveredby General Stuart ; namely, Firft, for being abfentfrom my duty and ftation without leave. Secondly,for accufing the commander in chiefof having infringedthe military law. And thirdly, forrefufing the arreftunder which he had ordered me to be put. But whenthe affair had reached this extremity, and the difputa-ble authority of thofe, who on the late revolution hadaflumedthe government, was on the point of being ex-ercifedto my deftru&ion, Sir Edward Hughes, Sir Edward Vernon, and the honorable Capt, Waldegraveall generoufly interpofed themfelves in my favoureffect a reconcilement and to flop all farther proceed-ings. I thought myfelf greatly honoured by the me*diation of three officers of fuch rank and quality, andofchara&ers fo highly refpecled ; more efpecially as itwas wholly unfolitited, and flowed from their own ge-nuine feelings for my fituation, and from their difcern-ing the ill tendency of the harfh meafures adopted againft me by the council, and the danger of therebybringing forward the difcuflion of points relative to tb*legality of the exifting government. Notwithftandingtoo my own opinion, that the powers of government atthe Presidency were then illegally exercifed, yet Idreadfed the idea of involving the fettlement in civil commo-tions ; and therefore I was happy to fee the profpeftof clofmg my difference with the acling council andGeneral Stuart, under the mediation of perfons incapa-b^e of advifing me to acquiefce in any fubmiffion or

meafuro


64/78

( 3 )

meafure derogatory from the character of a gentlemanand a foldier. With thefe ideas on the fubjeft, I fur-rendered myfelf without fcruple or referve, to the di-y re&ion of the very refpeftable mediators before men-tioned ; and by their influence, a compromife was atlength agreed upon. The terms were, that I fhouldfubfcribe an apology to the council and General Stuart,exprefling concern at having given occafion for thecourt-martial, and imputing my conduct to my ownmifapprehenfions ; and that, in confideration of thisconceffion, all farther proceedings againft me mould beflopped j and, on receiving my letter of apology, thecouncil came to a refolution in which they declared itfatisfaftory, and countermanded the order for thecourt-martial upon me. Here my chief conteft withMr. Stratton and his council, and General Stuart ter-minated. What pafled afterwards in refpeft to myappointment to the Trichinopoly flation, amounts tolittle more than this. About three weeks after the

V corapromife, I folicited the Board to be permitted to doduty in the garrifon at Madras, inftead of going to Tri-diinopoly. But Mr. Stratton and his council refufedto grant my requeft, and made anew order for my go-ing to the latter place. I accordingly did make a fhortvifit there, and returned to Madras with confent ofLieutenant-Col. Flint, the commanding officer at Tri-chinopoly. But within a few days after my return,Sir Thomas Rumbold arrived at Madras to take thegovernment ; and on receiving an order from the newgovernment to repair to Trighinopoly, I wrote a letterto


65/78

C 31 5to the governor and council on my conduct during thelate time of ufurpation. The purpofe of it was to ex-plain, that I confidered myfelf as greatly injured andopprefied by Mr. Stratton and his council; and thatthough to avoid a diflurbance of the peace of the fet-tlement, I had for a time externally acquiesced in theirappointment of me to Trichinopoly, yet I never, intruth, confidered myfelf as appointed to that ftation bya competent authority ; obferving at the fame time,that if the new and legal government mould think fitto appoint me there, it would require no other answerthan my obedience, and that as I was very anxious tofree myfelf from any imputation, or even fufpicionof diiobedience or difrefpefl to my lawful fuperiors, Ientreated them to fufpend their decifion on my conducttill I could be prepared with a memorial and reprefen-tation of it. To this letter, which was fent to thenew adminiftration within a week after Sir ThomasRumbold's arrival, I received noanfwer-j and as I didnot hear any thing more from them about my appointment to Trichinopoly, and in all my fubfequent cor-refpondence it was notfo much as once noticed, I con-fidered them as fileivtly and implied!)' conceding to mywiihes, that the appointment was irregular, or at leaftnotfit to beinjiftedupan.

This review of the tranfactions relative to the ap-pointment of me to the Trichinopoly flation, I hopewill entirely remove all the prejudices which may havebeen excited by a mere perufal of the Fort St. GeorgeConfutations on this head. Exprefled in a fliorter

compafs


66/78

( 32 )

toiapafs, the material parts of the tranfaftion amountto this. Afting under an illegal government, andappointed by them to a ftation where no bufinefs intoy line as an engineer was going on, in order to ex-clude me from the important ftations of Madras andTanjore, I availed myfelf of the leave given by theaiing governor and council to remain abfent from theHation, without reforting to the afting commander inV chief, whofe power I confidered as illegal, and towhofe influence I in part imputed the injury fromfuch an appointment. When this commander iachief complained of my abfence, becaufe it had not re-ceived his fanclion, not for the fake of any fervice tothe Company, but in order to extort from me a for-mal and unneceffary recognition of his authority, andtreated me with a contemptuous haughtinefs, my paf-fions were inflamed, and I privately ufed fome warmexpreflions towards him. When too he threatenedme with a court-martial, and I faw my life and ho-nour in danger of fuffering from the exertion of powerwhich I confidered as illegal, I endeavoured to refillthe attack, by charging my adverfary with being, asI really believed him to be, the chief advifer andpromoter of a breach of the Company's orders andmilitary difcipline, to the dilhonour and fuperfefiion ofthe corps of engineers, and of myfelf as an officer ofthat corps and the third in it in point of rank.When alfo my charge was thrown afide, and the fub-lequent one of my adverfary was received, and a court-martial was ordered againft me, I had the diftinguifhed

honour


67/78

( 33 )honour of being preferred from farther perfecution,by the voluntary interpofition of three officers in theking's fervice of high rank and quality ; and as wellin deference to their mediation, as for the fake ofavoiding to involve the fettlement in a civil commo-tion about the powers of illegal government, I con-fented to compromife the affair by an apology to thofewhofe only objedl was to obtain a recognition of thedifputed authority. After this compromife, I cau^tioufly declined all farther controverfy with the actingcommander in chief; and though I was Hill averfeto the ftation to which I was injurioufly appointed byan illegal government, and therefore endeavoured toavoid it, yet I fo far acquiefced as not avowedly to op-pofe their pleafure, and thereby was preferved fromany new poiitive breach with them. But when SirThomas Rumbold arrived, and a legal governmentwas again fully eftablifhed, and I was called upon togo to the ftation which had been forced upon me, Iavowed my opinion, that I confidered the appoint-ment as an injury done to me by an illegal govern-ment, and that my previous acquiefcence was a ne-ceflary facrifice to the peace of the fettlement. At thefame time, to prevent all poflibility of mifconflruc-tion, and to exculpate myfelf from every fufpicion ofdifrefpecl to a legal government, I reprefented myfelfas ready to anfwer the commands of the new adminif-tration by the moil prrfed and immediate obedience.Finally, this explanation of myfelf was fo fatisfactoryto thofe to whom it was addreffed, that in all myK fubfequent


68/78

( 34 )fubfequent communications with them, my appoint-ment to Trichinopoly was never the fubjed of theleaft difcuffion, nor was it ever ftated as an obje&ionto any of the applications I afterwards made for beingput upon duty and fervice. Such is the real nature ofmy tranfadlions with the Fort St. George presidencyin relation to the appointment of me to the Trichino-poly ftation ; and as it only proves that I was injuredfcy an illegal adminiftration, and that being involvedin controverfy with them I temporized, rather thanendanger the Company's affairs, I cannot help flatter-ing myfelf that the farther difcuffion of this part of mycafe will become unnecefTary. But mould any thingbe wanting to remove the objections to me on thishead, I am furnifhed with materials which will ena-ble me to enter more minutely into the affair, and inthat cafe I have every reafon to believe, that Sir Ed-ward Vernon and Captain Waldegrave, who are bothnow in England, will readily bear teftimony of fuch ofthe relative fads as fell within their knowledge, whenthey obligingly and generoufly joined Sir Edward.Hughes as mediators in my favour.

Gentlemen,I have at length exhaufkd all the facls and obferva-

tions, which atprefent appear to merequifite for your,information and guidance in the final decifion uponiny cafe. In the printed letter, to which this is a fup-

plement,


69/78


70/78

( 36 )Hation, fuitable to the pretenfions of one of my rank,,{landing and character, in the Company's fervice.

Gentlemen, with great refpeft,

I have the honour to be

Your moft obedient

And moft devoted fervant,

GEORGE BURGHALL,


71/78


72/78


73/78


74/78


75/78


76/78

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARYLos Angeles

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

Form L9-32m-8,'58(5876s4)444


77/78

SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

A 000017700 6


78/78

(1786) letter from major burghall to the honourable directors of the east-india company

Documents