No. V.
Letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Malcolm to Major-General
Gowdie, Commander of the Forces in
Chief, Madras.
Sir,
I have before informed you, that in consequence of instructions I received from the honourable the Governor, through the medium of Lieutenant-Colonel Barclay, military secretary, I proceeded (without waiting the assembly of the committee that was ordered) to make an inquiry into the conduct of the garrison of Masulipatam. I considered that the best form in which I could make this inquiry, was to collect from Lieutenant-Colonel Innes every information he could give, and to obtain such evidence from the officers of the garrison as appeared necessary to establish the leading facts of the transactions it was my object to investigate. I judged that a minute and formal personal examination of the parties was equally unnecessary to the object of the preliminary inquiry with which I was charged, and unsuited to the temper of the times, or to the fulfilment of those objects which I conceived the honourable the Governor to have had in view at the time I was appointed to the command of the garrison of Masulipatam.
The officers of the garrison whom I called upon for information, were of course cautious in committing to writing, or indeed in verbally stating, any thing that might criminate themselves: and I was induced, by many reasons, to avoid any examination of the men of the European regiment, or native battalion. Such evidence was not necessary to the establishment of the principal facts; and it could not have been obtained without a complete sacrifice of that temper which it was my object to maintain until the Government was in possession of the general result of my inquiry, and of that important information regarding the state of not only the garrison of Masulipatam, but of other stations in the army, which my employment upon this duty had enabled me to collect.
I enclose a statement given in by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes, with an Appendix, and two private notes in reply to queries I put to him, subsequent to his delivering me his first statement.
I also enclose a paper, which contains the substance of the information given me by Captain Andrews of the European regiment, and Captain Kelly of the 1st battalion 19th regiment of native infantry, and which was corroborated by several of the officers of the garrison. I transmit a paper from Lieutenant Nixon, the Adjutant, whom I examined relating to the different causes which had led to agitate the minds of the men of the European regiment, and to make them, as well as their officers, forget their duty.
You are in possession of Major Storey's public letter, stating the nature of the situation in which he was placed, and the steps which he adopted. In addition to that document I enclose the substance of a verbal declaration which Major Storey made to me upon this subject, and which shows the leading consideration which he states to have governed his conduct upon this occasion.
These enclosures will throw complete light upon the conduct of both Lieutenant-Colonel Innes and the officers of the garrison of Masulipatam: and I shall, in the course of the few observations which I feel it my duty to offer upon their contents, state such additional facts as came to my knowledge from verbal communications upon this subject.
It is not possible to contemplate the conduct of the officers of Masulipatam throughout the different stages of this transaction, without constant reference to the general discontent and disaffection to Government which, at the moment of their proceedings, prevailed in the minds of a large proportion of the officers of the Company's army on this establishment, and which must be considered as one of the chief, if not the sole cause of their excesses.
Lieutenant-Colonel Innes appears, from his statement, to have joined the corps he was appointed to command with an impression that the officers of it were disaffected to Government, and with a resolution to oppose and correct such improper principles in whatever place or shape he met them.
He landed at Masulipatam on the 7th May, and was invited on the same day to dine at the mess of the regiment; and it was after dinner, on this first day of their intercourse, that the ground-work was laid of all their future disputes. The only substantial fact adduced by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes on this occasion, and admitted by the other parties, was, that "the friends of the army" was given as a toast, at this meeting, by Lieutenant D. Forbes, and seconded by Lieutenant Maitland, quarter-master of the corps. This toast Lieutenant-Colonel Innes requested might be changed for "the Madras army;" but his proposition was not acceded to, and he, in consequence, left the table. This appears to be the only proved fact. Several observations are stated by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes to have been made by officers at the table, that were disrespectful to Government, and contrary to the principles of subordination and good order: but the only one of these observations that he specifies, is ascribed to Lieutenant Maitland in a letter to that gentleman, which forms a number of the Appendix. In that letter, Lieutenant-Colonel Innes, after regretting that Lieutenants Maitland and Forbes had not made the apology he required of them for their conduct on the evening of the 7th May, adds, "I will still forward any explanations you may state to me with respect to the observations you made at the mess on the 7th instant so publicly, with respect to the Nizam's detachment, and officers who are not friends of the army." Lieutenant Maitland, in his reply to this letter, states his hope that Government will not decide upon Lieutenant-Colonel Innes's report until he has an opportunity of defending himself: and further observes, "Until I received your letter this day, I never knew for what words or actions of mine an apology was required; for I most solemnly deny ever having given any opinion, in any manner, regarding the Nizam's detachment and its officers, that night, or at any other time, in your presence."
When Lieutenant-Colonel Innes left the mess-room, which he did, as has been before stated, in consequence of their refusing to change the toast to "the Madras army," as he had proposed, it appears the officers proceeded to drink their original toast in the manner they were accustomed to drink it, with three cheers: and these, it is not unlikely, may have been mistaken by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes for further marks of disrespect to him, and consequently to the authority by which he was appointed: but the officers of the regiment, who were present at table, deny the existence or expressions of any such sentiment.
These different statements cannot be deemed surprising, when the nature of this meeting is considered. The parties could, indeed, hardly have been personally known to each other: and although no doubt can be entertained of the goodness of Lieutenant-Colonel Innes's motives, and the laudable character of his zeal for the Government he served, it is perhaps to be regretted that his first effort to correct the principles of the officers of his corps should have been made at a convivial scene, where it was to be supposed men would be less under restraint than in any other situation, and therefore less disposed to attend to either the voice of counsel or authority.
But Colonel Innes, from his statement, appears sensible of this fact. He observes, after recapitulating the motives that led him to report privately the conduct of the officers of the regiment at the dinner on the 7th of May, to a confidential staff officer, from whom he received what he terms 'his original instructions,' "I at the same time particularly requested, that no public notice might be taken of what I found it expedient to state, unless I should be compelled subsequently to bring the business reluctantly forward officially; having intimated that I expected an apology to be tendered to me by Lieutenants D. Forbes and Maitland for their improper conduct on that evening, when the general orders of the 1st of May last were commented upon at the mess-room of the Madras European regiment."
That such was the impression upon Colonel Innes's mind, is confirmed by a note from him to Mr. Nixon, the adjutant of the regiment, in which he asserts, that he made no official report of the occurrence. It appears, however, that, contrary to Lieutenant-Colonel Innes's expressed expectation, you considered it your duty to notice the private communication he had made of the occurrences of the evening of the 7th May; and the letter which the Adjutant-General wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Innes upon that subject, under date the 17th May, was immediately put into the regimental orderly book of the corps. It would be superfluous for me to dwell upon the irritation which the measures that were adopted upon this occasion, and the mode of carrying them into execution, excited in the minds of the officers of the regiment. The nature and extent of that irritation are sufficiently explained in the accompanying documents. Its grounds were the supposed incorrectness of Lieutenant-Colonel Innes's private communications to head-quarters; the neglect with which the representations of the officers of the regiment upon this subject were treated; the hardship of a respectable staff officer being disgraced by a removal from his station, without knowing of what he was accused, or being permitted to say one word in his defence; and the unusual and extraordinary measure of detaching (as a punishment) an officer of the regiment to the command of a post where there was not one man of his corps, and the refusal of a court martial to the officer on whom this unprecedented mark of disgrace had been inflicted.
In addition to these subjects of complaint, the officers seem to have considered the publication of the letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Conway in the orderly book, as an unnecessary promulgation of the displeasure and censure they had incurred among the men of the regiment: and Lieutenant-Colonel Innes would appear to have been sensible, sometime afterwards, that this was the fact, as he desired the letter to be expunged from the orderly book.
You will observe, from the documents I enclose, all that took place connected with the appointment of Lieutenant Spankie, regarding which an impression was received by the officers of the regiment, from a communication made by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes, on the ground of a private letter, which he stated to them he had received from you, that it was in contemplation to disband the regiment, and place the officers on half-pay, if they did not alter their conduct; but that the fate of the corps would in a great degree be determined by the step which Lieutenant Spankie might take; that is, by his refusal or acceptance of the station of quarter-master. This idea (which I cannot think it was ever the intention of your letter to convey) was directly intimated by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes in the following private note to Lieutenant Spankie.
"My dear Sir,
"I believe I forgot to remark, that your situation and Lieutenant Fenwick's are very different now. Under existing circumstances it was equally proper for him to decline accepting of the quarter-mastership, as it is absolutely proper and necessary that you should accede to the General's wishes, to save a whole regiment. Think of this.
"Yours truly,
(Signed) "J. INNES."
This proceeding could not but greatly increase the irritation that before existed: it gave too much ground for the propagation of a belief, that the general punishment of the whole corps might depend upon the conduct of an individual (a young officer in the corps), on a question of a particular and personal nature; and it was not possible for an impression to have been made more calculated to increase the irritation and spirit of discontent which before prevailed in the regiment.
I shall now proceed to a concise view of the circumstances which relate to the order for the embarkation of a detachment of the Madras European regiment for marines, and of the occurrences which took place on the 25th June: regarding which, however, the documents already in your possession are so ample, as to require little further information upon the subject.
When Lieutenant Forbes was directed to proceed to Penang, and a party of marines, under Lieutenant Maitland, to be in readiness to embark on board the Fox frigate, no idea appears to have been entertained of opposition to these orders. Though the officers of the corps felt, that Lieutenants Forbes and Maitland being particularly ordered on these duties could only be as a punishment, and to avoid the stigma which they conceived this proceeding would bring upon the corps, they solicited Lieutenant-Colonel Innes to allow other officers to exchange with Lieutenant Maitland and Lieutenant Forbes, and at the same time assured him there was not an officer in the regiment that was not ready to take the tour of duty. This application (which proves the officers had no intention at that period of resisting the orders of Government,) was refused by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes, for reasons stated in his note to me of the 22d July, which forms a number of the Appendix.
Before the orders were received at Masulipatam for an increased number of marines embarking on board his Majesty's ships Piedmontese and Samarang, the minds of the officers of that garrison had been much inflamed by communications they had received from the different stations of the army. These expressed (agreeable to the statement of Captain Andrews and Captain Kelly) a general opinion of the illegality of the orders regarding Lieutenant Forbes and Lieutenant Maitland, and of the unjust manner in which the Madras European regiment had been treated. It was also reported from a variety of quarters, that the regiment was to be dispersed and disbanded: and these reports obtained, from the nature of preceding occurrences, a very ready belief both among the officers and men of the corps.
There can, however, be no doubt that the garrison at Masulipatam, as well as other stations with which they communicated, contemplated the detachment of so large a party as that ordered from the European regiment, as a serious diminution of their strength, and consequently injurious to the interests of the confederacy against Government, in which they were so deeply engaged; and that this consideration in some degree influenced them to that criminal course which they pursued: but I do not believe that this motive, unaided by others, would have led them at that moment to so bold and daring an opposition to orders.
The account given by Lieutenant-Colonel Innes of the proceedings of the 25th June, is, I am satisfied, perfectly correct. It is impossible for me to afford any further information than what you will derive from that document. To Major Storey's official letter, and the substance of that officer's verbal declaration to me, (which forms a number of the Appendix,) I can only add my conviction of two facts; 1st, That Lieutenant-Colonel Innes had it not in his power to coerce the obedience of the garrison in the state it was in; and, 2dly, That had bloodshed taken place, it would (as Major Storey states in his verbal declaration) have been the signal for the Company's officers at many other stations throwing off their allegiance to Government.
The accompanying deposition of Lieutenant and Adjutant Nixon is entitled to some attention. There is no doubt of the general facts which that officer has stated; they are indeed proved by the conduct of the men of the European regiment, who gave a ready support to their officers in an act which they must have known was mutinous, which it is not likely they would have done if they had not received unfavourable impressions of the intentions of Government. These impressions, however, were only the predisposing causes: the immediate impulse under which the deluded men of the regiment acted, was a wish to support officers who had been long with them, and a feeling of resentment at threatened coercion; and, under the action of this impulse, they would, no doubt, have opposed any troops that had been brought against them.
Though nothing can justify mutiny, it is impossible, when we consider that the non-commissioned officers and men of the Madras European regiment acted on this occasion at the call of almost all their regimental officers, not to acquit them in a very great degree of that share of criminality which must attach to all the individuals implicated in such proceedings. I am satisfied of the truth of what Lieutenant Nixon states regarding the discontent that exists among the men of this corps who have enlisted for an unlimited period of service. These men gave me a petition upon this subject, and prayed I would bring it to your notice. I communicated this petition to Major-General Pater, as I thought it implied, from the terms in which it was expressed, that they were aware of their situation, and were disposed to maintain their obedience to Government. It was at all events clearly to be inferred from the mode and substance of this representation, that those by whom it was made were sensible of the nature of the times, and thought them favourable for the accomplishment of their object.
It is impossible for me to state what officers have been most culpable in those irregular and unmilitary proceedings into which I have been directed to inquire; but, with the exception of those stated in Lieutenant-Colonel Innes's letter, (who had, in fact, no means of being useful,) I believe that all the officers present with the Madras European regiment, and the 1st battalion of the 19th regiment, were implicated in the general guilt. Those who took the most forward part, are stated in Lieutenant-Colonel Innes's letters.
The company of artillery stationed out of the Fort had no concern whatever in these transactions, and has remained throughout perfectly faithful to its duty and to Government.
I need hardly state that the native officers and men of the garrison of Masulipatam had no concern in this mutiny. They fell in on their parade, on the day of the 25th June, because a number of the officers of the corps called upon them to do so.
It is a justice I owe to Major Storey and to Captain Andrews, senior officer of the European regiment, to state, that from the 25th June until the 4th of July, the day on which I took the command, the utmost subordination and good order had been observed by the troops, and the duty of the garrison had been carried on with as great regularity and order as if nothing had occurred to disturb the usual routine of military discipline.
I feel it would be presumption in me to offer any opinion upon the subject of my inquiry, and I have therefore confined myself to the object of bringing before you, in as clear and concise a manner as I could, the leading and principal facts of those proceedings which I was directed to investigate.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) JOHN MALCOLM,
Lieut.-Col. Com.
Madras,
1st August, 1809.