Major-General Macaulay "cannot conceive, under the strong case which appears to be made out, how the government of this country and Parliament can, with a due regard to character, abstain from a revision of the whole question." Neither can we conceive how, in this respect,—not the government (of the Board of Controul and Court of Directors,) but—Parliament abstains.
APPENDIX.
To the Proprietors of East-India Stock.
Major Hart, in his advertisement, (Times, 24th of April,) says "I fear that I shall have no alternative but to appeal against such daily slander to the laws of my country." In other words, he, who sought to fight a duel with Major-Gen. Macaulay, fears. And may he fear!
But Major Hart dares not appeal to the laws of his country, were he even slandered after the daily manner of his own advertisement. Major Hart was too old a soldier to have to learn, that
He who fights and runs away,
Lives to fight another day.
Nor can Major Hart forget where Major-General Macaulay states, "Report—to which, however, I can scarce give credit—assigns this disgraceful production to the pen of a noted Barrister. Be that as it may, Major Hart stands fully (be this as it may, equally fully) responsible." Major-General Macaulay's official statement is, "Major Hart addressed a letter to the Court of Directors, dated the 22d of last month: that libellous letter has not yet been printed, by order of the Court of Directors, for the use of the Proprietors; but Major Hart has thought fit to print and widely to send it into circulation. I am sorry that it is not inserted in the Papers respecting the Mandamus; the reason may be, that the Court of Directors, possibly viewing it in the light I do, could not have thought it proper to make themselves accessaries to the circulation of a defamatory document, unaccompanied by explanations from me. To that letter from Major Hart was appended a declaration, under the signature of three General Officers; Gen. Sir John Floyd (Bart. omitted), Lieut.-Gen. Brown, and Lieut.-Gen. Bridges, on what these officers are pleased to term some important points connected with Major Hart's case. The words in Italics are so printed in the original."
Proprietors!—Have you never heard of a "Review of some important passages in the Administration of Sir George Barlow, Bart. by Charles Marsh, Esq. M.P.?" have you never heard that this "noted Barrister" is the probable author of an anonymous Report of Mr. Sherson's case, if not of his trial itself, or will you not hear your own Directors?