The Nineteenth and Their Times. J. Biddulph
for arrest if Government had a mind to seize his person. The offer was somewhat embarrassing to the Select Committee, who evaded the point by saying that, as Burgoyne had refused to take command of the Army, Lang had been appointed in his place, and there was nothing more to be said in the matter. On this, Burgoyne deputed Floyd to carry a letter to Lord Macartney, in which he asserted his position as senior officer bearing the King’s commission, and pointed out that he alone had power to convene Courts Martial.[12]
Lord Macartney was a man of violent temper and overbearing disposition that kept him in continual hot water. He demanded unhesitating submission to his views from all with whom he came in contact. His relations with the supreme government at Calcutta were as unyielding as with those in immediate contact with him at Madras. His chief merit was his personal honesty in money matters, at a time of great laxity; a merit on which he was by no means silent, and which he did not insist on in his colleagues. He threw himself with ardour into the chronic quarrels carried on by the Madras Council with the Bengal Government and the military authorities, and, in pursuit of the quarrels, lost sight of the great interests at stake, and brought the Madras settlement to the verge of anarchy. Even before Sir Eyre Coote’s death he had been induced to believe that General Stuart had designs against the Government. This belief, for which not a scrap of evidence was ever brought forward, led him into a line of conduct that brought about corresponding and increasing opposition from Stuart. After Stuart’s arrest, the same suspicion was transferred to Burgoyne, with even less presumption of justice than had existed in Stuart’s case. Burgoyne proposed an interview in the presence of witnesses. Had Lord Macartney been less bent on the quarrel, he would have grasped the opportunity of coming to some understanding. Instead of this he used the most uncompromising language to Floyd. “Government would not recede; Government must be peremptory;” and he still affected to treat Burgoyne as having refused the command of the army. The following day, Burgoyne received a letter from the Select Committee arguing the old point of General Stuart’s commission, and asserting that Burgoyne had acknowledged the validity of Lang’s promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, in spite of which he had withdrawn from camp without Lang’s permission. The Committee would not contest with him about any authority he might undertake to exercise, unless it endangered the public safety, but would not countenance his resumption of command. Lang’s command extended to the King’s as well as the Company’s troops, and they (the Committee) would convey dispatches addressed to either Commander in Chief, to Lang. If Sir John Burgoyne thought proper to act as Commander in Chief, and to convene Courts Martial, the Committee had no objection “unless their duty forced them to interfere.” Such unworkable arrangements were bound to lead to further quarrels. On the same day, as previously proposed by him, Sir John Burgoyne had an interview with Lord Macartney, Major General Bruce and Lt. Colonel Floyd being present. Throughout the quarrel, Burgoyne had been actuated by a desire to arrive at some working arrangement that would enable the public service to be carried on, while preserving the rights of the King whose senior representative he was. In this spirit he sought an interview with the Governor. But there was no corresponding desire for peace on the side of the Governor and Council, and Lord Macartney’s behaviour was disingenuous. Burgoyne asked for explanations to some parts of the Select Committee’s letter, which he discussed generally. Lord Macartney would give no direct answer, and was very guarded in what he said. He was only a Member of the Government, not authorized to decide, but only to speak their sentiments, and to represent matters to the other Members. Would Sir John put down in writing what questions he pleased, he would engage to lay them before the Select Committee, and obtain replies to them. Lord Macartney’s intention was to obtain the same control over the King’s troops, as he exercised over the Company’s troops. To gain this end he was resolved to give the command to a Company’s officer, who would naturally be more pliable than a King’s officer, though it was a recognised principle with the British Government to keep the command of the King’s troops under an officer of their own appointment. It is almost incredible that this miserable quarrel should have gone on at a time of the greatest public distress, when Tippoo was triumphant in the field, and it was still uncertain that the Mahrattas would not take up arms again.
Stuart was, shortly afterwards, shipped off to England under close arrest, in a ship specially purchased for the purpose, though, for want of funds, the pay of the troops was in some instances over two years in arrears. During imprisonment, he was denied the use of pen and ink, and was only allowed to see Burgoyne on public business in presence of the officer on duty over him. At the time of his embarkation, he believed that it was intended to put him to death at sea.
Burgoyne assumed the command of the King’s troops without further direct opposition, but the Council lost no opportunity of thwarting him and lowering his authority, while they encouraged others to resist it. Burgoyne, on his part, cast moderation aside, and was bent on pushing his claims to extremity. He ignored General Lang, and issued orders that clashed with those of the civil government, producing confusion, perplexity, and relaxation of discipline in every rank. The Major Generals, who had joined in signing the protest against Lang’s promotion, and several others among the officers commanding regiments withdrew their support from Burgoyne. In October, Burgoyne placed Lieutenant Colonel Sterling of the 36th under arrest for disobedience of orders: the Select Committee released him. The soldiers too had their grievances about batta which should have been paid to them, but was withheld by Lord Macartney. The men of the 98th were on the eve of mutiny, and the men of Burgoyne’s own regiment formed the project of going to the Fort in a body to ask redress. Burgoyne sternly repressed both movements, but the Select Committee gave him credit for causing them. A fresh crisis in the quarrel was inevitable.
In December, General Ogle reported certain matters seriously affecting the private character of an officer of the 73rd. The rest of the officers of the regiment refused to allow the matter to be patched up, as General Ogle desired. Burgoyne had no option but to convene a General Court Martial, which he did, appointing Lieutenant Colonel Straubenzee of the 52nd as President. The Court was also to try two soldiers of the 98th, who had appealed from a Regimental Court Martial. On such occasions it was customary for the Council to appoint the Judge Advocate. They refused to nominate one for this or any Court Martial Sir John might order to assemble, and refused to grant a place in the Fort for the Court to assemble in. They also forbade Straubenzee to leave Poonamallee where he was commanding. Burgoyne then arranged for the Court to assemble at Poonamallee, but without making the change known, and ordered Straubenzee still to hold himself in readiness to preside. He also ordered Colonel Sterling to appear for trial before the Court. The Select Committee thereupon, on the 31st December, issued an order placing Burgoyne under arrest for disobedience of orders in September, and for exciting mutiny and sedition, and appointed Major General Alan Campbell to command the King’s troops. No attempt was made on this occasion to place the King’s troops under Lang.
The absurdity of the Select Committee’s action, both in Stuart’s and Burgoyne’s cases, was shown by their inability to form a Court Martial for the trial of those officers. They tried to get Burgoyne to proceed to England, but he refused to go. He proceeded, for a time, to Pondicherry under open arrest, while the dual commands of the King’s and Company’s forces continued. For the next eighteen months Lord Macartney’s quarrels and intrigues, added to his unjust measures touching the pay and allowances of the army, produced results that bid fair to end in the ruin of the British government on the Coast.
In April 1784, a mutiny occurred among four newly formed Native Cavalry Regiments at Arnee. Arrears of pay for twelve months were owing to them, and they likewise had unsatisfied claims on the Nawab of Arcot, from whose service they had been transferred. They seized the fort of Arnee, and imprisoned their officers. A month’s pay was given them, but they held out for the whole arrears. The 36th Foot and one hundred men of the 23rd Light Dragoons were dispatched to Arcot, to join General Lang. On the night of the 15th May they marched for Arnee, which they reached soon after daybreak, and after a brief parley the mutineers laid down their arms.[13] In October, one of the King’s infantry regiments at Arcot broke out into open mutiny, but were overawed by the men of the 23rd, and the two other regiments in garrison, who stuck to their officers. These were by no means the only instances of grave insubordination both among King’s or Company’s troops, due to Lord Macartney’s ill-advised measures. The officers had to complain of broken faith as well as the men.
Sir