Correspondence Between Lord Macartney and F 3 j or -General Stuart, since Lord Macartney's Arrival 'In UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LORD MACARTNEY AND MAJOR-GENERAL STUART, SINCE LORD MACARTNEY'S Arrival in ENGLAND, From loth JANUARY to 8th JUNE, 1786. Printed for J. D E B R E T T, oppofite Burlington-Kottfe, Piccadilly. M,DCC,LXXXVI. ADVERTISEMENT. J. DE BRETT is authorized to publifli the following Correfpondence, whic Was originally printed at MAJOR-GENERAL STUART'S Expence, on the Zift of Jun< for the Purpofe of being circulated to a certain Number only ; but MAJOR-GENERA STUART having had Notice that the Correfpondence is retailed in one of the Mornin News-papers, contrary to his Intention, and without his Sanction, he has though proper, in order to prevent erroneous and partial Extracts, to tranfmit to Mr. Debrett accurate Copies of the WHOLE of the Correfpondence between Lord Macartney aiu himfelf, for Publication. July 14, 1786, y E w tVBLicJfloirs, Printed for J. DEBRETT, oppofite Burlington Houfe, Piccadilly.' A RTICLES of CHARGE of HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS againft WARREN HAS- A TINGS, E! Governor General of Bengal: prefented to the HOUSE cf COMMONS in .786, by f'.. Efq. late Governor General of Bengal, at the matter of Charge of High Crimes and Mifdemeanors, predated of'the ^W??k. before a Committee of the .hole Houfe of Commons, on the Ar- k of ChofHi^h Crimes and Mifdemeanor,, prefented to the Houfe againft WARDEN HASTINGS, ticks ot Charge or 'i __ Containing the Evidence of Sir Robert Barker, Colonel Champion, B a ,four, S Gardner, and Gilpi. , M, M.ddieton, and Captain WiU a,l uniform., priced in *vo, ma, be had eomplete, in one B roaWCrBMN a, AEN^ES, M an A P PE 5 a,, X of AU- HPVTIC ^PAPERS and AFFIDAVITS, ckgant^ printed in -kjuarto/. . VI COPY of a LETTER from WARREN HASTINGS, Efq. to the Court- of Direftorf, relative to their Cenfure on his Condua Tat Benares; and alfo the ANSWER of the Court of Dfto thereto j prefented u, the Houfe of Commons upon the 2 d Day_ of M^. Mr HASTikG^LETW'to AVilliam : ^evavncs, Efq. Chairman oP the India 'Company, from Chel- ^ and >8 Ad ro ini ft ra t ion of Governor Haa.ngs. Temtory, and >8 Ad ro ini ft ra t ion of Governor ^S^^!^ ^ y f ,f - *= Th ^oMK^dua of Cornmittee apped ,o.a k e conCderaMon he S.a.e of the of uft ic T . Money a an s William, on the Settlement and ^ tote Kights and Pret^ons rf *. *b. rf Arcot, and the Kajah of Lctl " of Lord Macartney on the Subjeft, &c. f &c ' . Ser - ie , of Lette rs to a Friend, daring five Years Re- .rrdLrTr^ ^e^f^rX^^S^r'^reS^o^ DO A R S S If A BE H GiLf^AHAtS a^T ALLAHABAD, ith P of AGRA and BSLffl, by JAMES REN^ELL, F.R.S. Price ?s. 6d, CORRESPONDENCE E T W E E .N Lord MACARTNEY and Major General STUART, Since Lord MACARTNEY'S Arrival in England, From loth January to 8th June iy&6. Prom Major General STUART to Lord MACARTNEY-. Lower Grofvenor Street, Jan. loth, 1786. Tuefday Afternoon. ; MAJOR GENERAL STUART takes the earlieft opportunity in his power to communicate to Lord Macartney an extract from the Petition on his part, laid before his Majefty, and to acquaint Lord M. that the whole of that Petition may be feen at Lord Sydney's Office, and at the India Houfe. Extra^ from M. G. S.'s Petition to tbe King, dated July 26tb, 1785. " He (the Petitioner) begs leave, however, in juftice ta himfelf, only * e to obferve in point of fa6t, That while in India, and when made ac- " quainted with the contents of the Minutes of the Prefident of the Seledt " Committee, which contained the Charges againft him, he never failed to " take the very firft opportunity of declaring to Lord Macartney, the Pre- " fident of that Committee, in the ftrongeft and moft unequivocal terms, " both verbally and in writing, the injuftice and falfehood of the imputa- * e tions thus aimed at the Petitioner's character and conduct; and the " Minutes on the Petitioner's part, in anfwer to thofe of the Prefident, in your letter to the India Directors of 3Oth Sept. 1783, wherein you took occafion alfo to add infult to injury, has been in the moft convincing manner, and by evidence upon oath, taken at the trial of Sir John Burgoyne, proved to be totally falfe, and that you knew it to be fo, at the time you wrote that letter. From the annexed State it appears likewife, that the ftory you had thus invented, and in which without the knowledge of Sir John Burgoyne you had made ufe of his name, as deriving your authority from him, has been pofitively contradicted by that refpectable officer himfelf, notwithftanding the compliments, which, in your letter to the Directors, you affected to pay to him at my expence, and which he has honourably difdained to accept, knowing the injuftice of the reprefentation given of me in that letter. I have now only to repeat my demand for immediate fatisfaction, and am, &c. (Signed) JAMS. STUART. P. S. The Gentleman who has done me the honour to be the bearer of this letter knows my mind. He has full powers to fettle what remains to be done, with you or with your friend. (Signed) J. S, [ Inclofure in the preceding Letter. ] STATE OF FACTS. Extract of a Letter from Lord Macartney , &V. to the Court of Director s 9 dated 30 Sept. 1783. T7ROM General Stuart he (Sir John Burgoyne) came to the Prefident, ] <( J? fj e acknowledged he was defired to feign compliance with the wijhes of " Government, and to promife accepting the command; but he difdained to follow " fo reprobate a precedent; he declined the command ; he honeftly gave " notice to the Committee, that Major General Stuart was about ifiuing iieft. Did you fign the letter to the Court of Directors of the 3Oth Sep* tember 1783. Anf. I beg to refer you to the records now before the Court, In addition to the evidence which arifes from the refult of thefe examina- tions of Mr. Johnfton and Mr. Davidfon, it mufl be fufficiently clear from the queftions put by Sir John Burgoyne, and from his being the perfon who called upon thefe witnefTes, that he (Sir John Burgoyne) was convinced of the faliehood of the intelligence which, in the letter of the joth Septem- ber 1783, had been fent to the Eaft India Directors, in that eflential part of it, which had reprefented General Stuart as defiring him (Sir John Bur- goyne) to feign compliance with- the wiflies of government, &c. And it muft be evident, that Sir John Burgoyne, by thefe examinations of Mr. Johnfton and Mr. Davidfon, meant to detect the falfehood of that intelli- gence, notwithftanding the mixture of compliment which it contained tc* Kim perfonally, at the expence of General Stuart. But ( 8 ) But if any doubt could pofilbly remain as to Sir John Burgoyne's pofitive contradiction of the intelligence which Lord Macartney pretended to have received from him, there is a Letter of Sir John Burgoyne's hand-writing t fi'.-ied by him on the i8th June 1785, and addrefied by him to a Perfon at Madras , which Letter is now in General Stuart's poflefiion, and contains the following panigraph : " / have to ajfure you, that I never told Lord Macartney General Stuart had (c defired me to feign compliance with the wijhes of government, and to promife " accepting the command." (f Mr. Johnfton, who was with me purpofeiy, can inform you of all that ct pail. No other converfation ever took place on the fubject with Ge- ft neral Stuart and me, but what I have communicated to you." In confequence of the reference thus made to Mr. Johnfton in Sir John Burgoyne's Letter, the Perfon to whom it was addreffed wrote that fame day, iSih June 1785, to Mr. Johnfton, requefting that he would let him know, ' if he heard Sir John Burgoyne inform Lord Macartney, or any other " member of government, or any one elfe, then, or fince that period, That " he, Sir John, was defired by General Stuart to feign compliance with the but the Perfon employed by General Stuart upon this and other bCcafions, in his feparate orders to the King's troops, was Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Grattan, the Adjutant General to his Majefty's troops in the Eaft Indies, who had been employed in that capacity by Sir Eyre Coote, arid of courfe by General Stuart. The very orders iffued by General Stuart on the lyth of September 1783, were figned by Major Grattan, defcribing himfelf thus, " Adjutant General to his Majefty's forces in India." Thefe particulars muft have been known to Lord Macartney at the time when he figned the Letter to the Directors of 3Oth September 1783. (Signed) JAM 5 . STUART. The preceding Letter of 17 th May, with the State of FacJs therein referred to, 'were, on the 28/ May, delivered by General Stuart's Friend to Lord \Macartney 4 who immediately agreed to accept of General Stuart's Invitation, but Jlated his reafons for propofmg a delay of eight or ten days, for fettling his private affairs. Thefe reafons were reported to General Stuart, who acquiefced in them as very proper. On this foot- ing matters remained till Wednefday the Jth of June, when the following Notes from Lord Macartney to Colonel Gordon, dated the 6th, and received by Colonel Gordon the Morning of yh June, were communicated to Gene- ral Stuart. C 2 From ( 12 ) From Lord MACARTNEY to Colonel GORDON^ T ORD MACARTNEY has the honour of fending a Paper for Colonel Gos*- *H don's perufal. The Gentleman who delivers it will fettle all other points. Charles Street, June 6th, 1786.. [ Inclofure under the fame Cover. J NOTE for Colonel ANDREW GORDON, in confequence of the Letter inclofmg State of Fads, from Major General STUART, dated May- 27th, 1786, and delivered by Colonel GORDON to Lord MACART- NJEY on the 28th May, 1786.. Charles Street, B. S. June 6th, 1786. TF any Gentleman, feeling himfelf hurt by fuch a reprefentation as, in a. * public capacity, I thought it my duty to make of him, requefted in de- cent terms an explanation of the fame from me, I Ihould be very much dif- pofed to give it to- him -, but when Major General Stuart thought fir, in. January laft, the very day after my arrival in London from India, to fend a. Letter with Inclofures to me, cenfuring in unqualified exprefijons my pub- lic conduct in relation to him, 'and contradicting my aflertions, I held it fufflcient to obferve-, that thofe perfons to whom I was accountable for my public conduct, if any fuch there were, who entertained a doubt of it,, would ever find me ready to explain it to their fatisfaction,; but that I was. long refigned to the confequences of having fulfilled the duties of my ftation,, and to be expofed to the contradiction and oppofition of thofe individuals, of whofe mifconduct I in my official capacity had been obliged to take notice ; concluding, by faying, that if Major General Stuart had any drift, not directly exprerTed (which, it was fufficiently obvious he had), I defired be might make it known through any Gentleman whona he might chufc to appoint, as I mould take no. notice of communications in any other manner from him. The General, by a fecond Paper fent to me in the fame month of January, feemed perfectly fatisfied with my conceiving at once the object to which he aimed, and which being- once decided upon, all farther difcuflion of. the fubje<5t that led to it is out of time, and a renewal of accufation and abufe lofes its edge, as not being able to. provoke to more than was already determined to be done; on every account,, therefore* Major General Stuart has ng right tp expect that I fhould take notice of his late late Letter and Tnclofure, otherwife than by fettling with his friend, as I have done, the point of ultimate fatisfaftion, which the General has in view. I wifh, however, that his Friend fhould know, that I have no diffi- culty in repelling the accufations contained in the Papers communicated to* him by Major General Stuart j for I was authorifed to declare, that Major General Sir John Burgoyne did acknowledge, that be was dejired to feign com- pliance with the wijbes of government , and to frcmife accepting th'e command, but he dijdained to follow Jo re-probate a precedent j becaufe the fad certainly is,, that Major General Sir John Burgoyne did relate fuch defire or advice to me on the i7th September 1783 ; and as I knew no motive that could in- duce him to make fuch affertion without ground, I believed him, and therefore ufed the expreffian of his having acknowledged fuch advice.. What was the caufe or motive of his fubfequent denial of this afiertion, whether he forgot that he had made it among others in the courfe of a long and de- fultory converfation, when his mind was confiderably agitated} or whether, from the fhame of having Betrayed what was no doubt meant to be a very private and confidential requeft, or advice, he chofe to fcreen himfelf under a denial of the fame precife words, notwkhftanding a confcioufnefs of having conveyed the fame precife idea, I am not interefted to enquire; or whether his brother-in-law, Mr. Richard Johnfton did really hear every word fpoken by Sir John Burgoyne in the different parts of the Fort- houfe,. fometimes in my apartments, fometimes in the Council-chamber,, and fome- times in the Veranda, or Gallery before the Fort-houfe y during the con- ferences, which lafted altogether, in thofe different places, during feveral- hours, on the iyth September 1783, without all which, fuch negative tefti- mony is deferving of no attention : but it. is a pofitive truth and fa6b,, that t did hear Sir John Burgoyne make that declaration ; and I find that it i& alfo in the clear and perfect recollection of the only perfon now in England,, Sir George Staunton> who. was prefent at, thofe conferences,, and. who drew up an-account of them at. the. time. By the extract from the Court-martial,, contained in Major General Stuart's Paper >; it does not appear, that Mr., Davidfon had his recollection, prefent when examined on that occafion. He. could not indeed hear the whole of what paft at thofe conferences with Ma.- jor^GeneraJ Sir John Burgoyne, oa the j-yth September 1783^*8- he was. there only during a part of them.* for I., did not fummon, in. the afternoon of that day, the Select Committee of the Council,, of which he was a Member, until after I had fome confiderable converfation with- Sir John Burgoyne. It is not probable that any one perfon heard the whole of what was faaci during that day; but it is probable that Mr. Hudle- 0oa, then Secretary to the Select Committee, and- who- was : prefent from the Beginning, heard Major General" Sit Jpnn Burgoyne mention' the' ad- vice; ( H ) vice he had thus received; but, as I was refufed a fight of the proceedings of the Court Martial when in India, notwithstanding my folicitations for that purpofe, it is not furprifmg that I fhould be ignorant whether that Gen- tleman's evidence was taken, or whether he was examined to this point. This fact is related in the Select Committee's Letter hiftorically, and not as any ground on which our determinations refted, or were to be juftitied, and therefore would have been an invention, neither likely to occur, nor ufeful to be made, nor neceffary to our purpofe. The fact of Major General Stuart's iffuing orders to the troops after he was difmiffed from the Company's fervice, as aflerted by me to have been afferted by Major General Sir John Burgoyne, is indeed a fact much more eflential in this bufmefs, and does not appear to have been denied. As to my reafoning upon that fact, it muft bear itfelf out, and it has. done fo. My fundamental and decifive pofition was, that after Major General Stuart had J?een difmiffed from the Company's fervice, it was an illegal act in him to iffue any orders to any troops in India, and that pofition is found, on the mod deliberate and fcrupulous examination here, to be unqueftionably right. My Letter of the 3Oth September 1783, accounted for the meafure, among others, of ordering Major General Stuart to be arrefled in the afternoon of the iyth September 1783. The propriety of that meafure was to depend on the facts I knew, or had a right to affume at that precife time. I knew that Major General Stuart had then no right to iffue any orders. I knew he was actually iffuing orders, and if my reafoning be juft, as it is found to be, I had a right to affume that the purport of the orders was as illegal, as the authority to iffue them. No fact that could come only to my knowledge afterwards could have been brought by me in juftification of that meafure, and I am fufficiently juftified, if the facts then within my knowledge au- thorized the meafure, even if others had come afterwards to light, which if then known, ought to have prevented it. My Letter therefore of the 3Oth September 1783 properly and clearly alluded to and reported my reafoning on the afternoon of the lyth day of the fame month, previous and leading to the determination of arrefting Major General Stuart. Nor did any fact come in that interval or fince to light, capable of overturning or weakening the inferences I then drew, for I know no fact that has appeared to prove that the orders which Major General Stuart was preparing to iffue to the troops, when he was at liberty, and without expecting to be arrefted before he could iffue them, were the identical orders, which, after he had been arrefted, he thought in his new pofition proper to fend to Major General Sir John Burgoyne to iffue to the troops ; and if, as is likely, for it could not be avoided without inconfiftency, thofe orders took notice of the new 7 event ( * r event that took place with regard to him, thofe erders muft of courfe differ from thofe which were preparing before fuch event took place. Another event did happen after the arreft, which has added great probability to the inferences which had been drawn by me before it. Major General Stuart was allowed, upon being arrefted, to gather up the Papers, on which he was bufy at his table with Major John Grattan, his Secretary and Aid-de- Camp, and which Papers probably were, or were in part, thofe orders fo intended to be iffued ; Major General Smart took thofe papers with him into his Palankeen, which conveyed him from the place of his arreft towards the Fort, and in his way thither he was obferved to tear feveral Papers. It is not unwarrantable to conjecture that Major General Stuart would not, on fo critical an occafion, gather Papers about which he appeared to be anxious for the purpofe of tearing them as ufelefs, and therefore that he was anxious about them, and in a hurry to defllroy them, as being Papers of an illegal purport, that would if feert confirm the fufpicion of his illegal defigns. I was as juftifiable in denying the legality of Major John Grattan's ap- pointment in India by Sir Eyre Goote to be Adjutant General of the King's forces, as I have been in denying the legality of Major General Stuart's iffuirjg orders to the troops after his difmiflion from the Company's fervice. His Majefty has, by the Secretary at War's Letter, declared, that the appoint- ment could only be made by the King himfelf ; and confequently Sir Eyre Coote had no authority to appoint Major Grattan. Major Grattan was not therefore in September 1783 Adjutant General of the King's troops. Nor, as I did not then allow any fuch pretenfion on his part, could I officially defcribe him otherwife than as I juftly defcribed him, the confidential perfon whom on particular occafions he Major General Stuart preferred to the Adjutant General Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm for diftributing his orders. (Signed) MACARTNEY. ON Thurlday the 8th of June the meeting between Lord Macartney and General Stuart took place. The preceding pages are confined to the Correfpondence which palled previous to that date. By this means Lord Macartney's Note to Colonel Gordon of the 6th of June, the laft Paper in this collection, is permitted at prefent to have its ( 16 ) its effect on the minds of thpfe who, either from partiality or inatten- tion, may be difpofed to allow any weight to the contents of that Paper : it was intended by Lord Macartney as an Anfwer to fome ipecific Charges brought forward againft his Lordfhip in General Stuart's State of Facts of the 2 yth May, which Charges were felected as fome out of various inftances of injuries fuftained by General Stuart from Lord Macartney's hoftile and unjuft conduct towards him. - Thefe Charges, fo fpecified in the State of Facts, confifted of Three Articles ; the firft of which relates to what pafled between Lord Macartney and Sir John Burgoyne in the Committee Room at Madras on the 1 7th September 1783. On that fubje'ct General Stuart charged Lord Macartney with a wilful mifreprefentation of the fad: ; aggra- vated by an injurious and malevolent commentary of his own, founded upon that mifreprefentation. It appears from Lord Macartney's Note to Colonel Gordon, that his Lordfhip has now recourfe to the aid of the clear and perfecl recollection of his late private Secretary Mr. George Staunton, now Sir George Leonard Staunton, of the kingdom of Ireland, Baronet, in order to fupport his own aflertion, and the various loofe conjectures which have been formed to juftify the transferring the blame from himfelf to the late Sir John Burgoyne, whom he has now thought proper to load with imputations of the moft degrading nature, con- trary to the evidence arifing from the ftrong and accumulated proofs mentioned in the State of Facts, which clearly fubftantiate the Charge made againft Lord Macartney on this Article. It further appears from the Note to Colonel Gordon, that Lord Mac- artney has there altogether avoided any juftification of the infulting and injurious commentary made by him in paragraph 1 1 7 of his Letter to the Directors, of 3Oth September 1783, and to which his attention had been fo particularly called by General Stuart in the State of Facts. The expreflions in that commentary were, in themfelves, unjuftifiable ; and though, from the artful method of arranging the whole of the para- graph 1 17 in the Letter to the Directors, and from the mode adopted in Lord Macartney's Note to Colonel Gordon, of extracting part only of that paragraph, there feems to have been a wiih that the commentary 3 ftiould ( '7 > fhould be afcribed to Sir John Burgoyne ; yet it mufl be obvious to every perfon who reads the whole with attention, that there has been a confcioufnefs on Lord Macartney's part, of the impoffibility of transferring the unwarrantable commentary from himfelf to Sir John Burgoyne, even after the death of that officer. The Second Article related to the orders to the King's troops, prepared by General Stuart on the lyth September. Upon this Article Lord Macartney , has thought fit to exprefs his difbelief of what General Stuart has moft folemnly and" pofitively aflerted, which difbelief is fupported merely by conjectures, guefles, and patched-up circumftances, with a view to convey an impreffion, that the orders prepared by General Stuart on the iyth September, before his Arreft, were not the fame with thofe which afterwards were iflued on the i8th, but, on the contrary, that the original orders muft have been not only of a very different, but of a very dangerous tendency ; to ftrengthen which conjectures Lord Macartney has ventured to infmuate, without exprefsly affirming it, that the orders ifFued by General Stuart to the King's troops took notice of his Arreft. If this laft- mentioned fact were true, it would no doubt prove that the orders prepared before the arreft had been varied after that event ; but the fact is directly otherwife, for there is no mention of the arreft from the beginning to the end of General Stuart's orders. In anfwer to the whole of the arguments and conjectures which Lord 1 Macartney, on the moft vague and trifling circumftances, has formed: againft the identity of the orders, General Stuart in the firft place oppofes and here repeats his own pofitive and moft folemn afTertion ; he next ap- peals to the contents of the orders themfelves, and to the teftimony of Sir John Burgoyne, who received them on the lyth, ifTued them to the King's troops on the morning of the iSth September, and in his Report to the War-Office, dated in the fame month of September 1783, fpeaking of thefe orders, has expreflfed himfelf in the following words : " In the " night of the I7th September, Adjutant General Grattan brought to " me an order from General Stuart (No. 6.) 'wrote before his Arreft) " which I took with me, and fent to the 23d Light Dragoons, *' 36th, 5 2C *5 73d, and 98th." ( General General Stuart might alfo appeal to the teflimony of Major Grattan, the Adjutant General, who muft neceflarily have known if there had been any change of the orders ; but fortunately he has it now in his power further to appeal to decifive written evidence at the India-Houfe, as well as at the War-Office, which puts this matter beyond the reach of cavil. With regard to Lord Macartney's affertion, That General Stuart had no right to iiTue any orders at that time; his Lord (hip is pleafed to take for granted the very thing which then was, and fliil is in difpute. Lord Macartney muft know, that while General Stuart admitted he had no right to give orders to the Company's troops after difmiflion from their fervice, he at the fame time uniformly maintained, and flill does maintain, that he had a right to give orders to the King?, troops, becaufe he neither was, nor ever could be difmifled from the command of the King's troops by Lord Macartney, or by any authority inferior to that of the King himfelf ; and this was the opinion not only of General Stuart, but of the King's other officers in India, which has been afcertained by a variety of .evidence produced to the court martial upon Sir John Burgoyne's trial at Madras ; and particularly it was known to Lord Macartney and the Select Committee to be the decided opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, the officer next to General Stuart in the command of the King's troops, and whofe intereft, therefore, it was, upon that occafion, to have maintained a contrary doctrine. It is therefore not fair reprefentation to fuppofe that the orders to be iflued by General Stuart muft have been of courfe illegal, and cal- culated for defperate purpofes, when they were iflued under fuch authority as General Stuart has, from the firft moment to the pre- fent time, uniformly maintained to be perfectly legal ; and to this hour that queftion of the legality, and of General Stuart's right to continue in the command of the King's troops until his Majefty's pleafure mould be known, has never been decided by any authority competent finally to fettle this matter. But even admitting that the queftion were now to be decided contrary to the opinion which has hitherto been entertained by General Stuart and the King's officers in India, fuch fubfequent judgment would not amount 8 to ( '9 ) to a proof, nor countenance a rational fufpicion that orders, which had been iffued in confequence of a real, though an erroneous opinion of the powers to iffue them, muft, on that account, have been formed for defperate and extraordinary ptirpofes. The very reverfe of that pro- pofition is more accurately true, if any inference is to be drawn from fuch premifes. If General Stuart's acting, in confequence of his opinion, becaufe different from that of Lord Macartney, is to be held as proof of illegal defigns on his part; by the- fame rule G. S. might impute illegal defigns to Lord M. becaufe, in a queftion relating to the King's troops, he (Lord M,) acted in confequence of his opinion, in oppofition to that of General Stuart, and of all the officers of the King's army. The mode of reafoning adopted by Lord Macartney is fomewhat fin- gular. General Stuart having denied the power of the Select Committee to take from him the command of the King's troops, of which he was actually in pofleffion, with all its confequent powers, this retaining of the authority, with which he was then inverted, his Lordfhip ch'ufes to defcribe as an illegal a gumption of authority ; and, taking this for ' granted, his argument and reprefentation of General Sruart's conduct runs thus : " The illegal affumption of authority in itfelf juftifies \hefuppafition of Paragr ** illegal dcfigns, and in the prefent inftance they could be no other" """ Major General" Stuart "could have at that time rto orders to iflue Paragr " in the common courfe of carrying on the fervice, itmujl have been or- " ders 'with a view to extraordinary purpofes, fated fo the wild and de- " fperate nature ofhispretenjions, and to thefituatwn of his mind" Thefe paragraphs in Lord Macartney's Letter to thejpirectors, though they might produce fome criticifms upon the infufficiency of his Lord-^ fiiip's reafoning, would have been comparatively innocent and jufti- fiable, if, at the time when he was thus arguing upon the nature of thefe orders, he could have truly declared that he was totally ignorant of the orders which had actually been iflued ; but the fact is, and Lord Macartney has not ventured to deny it, that on the 3oth Septem- ber 1783, when his memorable Letter to the Directors, calculated for D 2 the the purpofe of juftifying all his violence and outrages againft General Stuart, was written, he knew perfectly well the nature of tjie orders which General Stuart had prepared for, and iflued to the King's troops. In common fairnefs, therefore, one might have had reafon to* expect that he would have forwarded to the Directors a faithful copy of thefe orders to fpeak for themfelves, inftead of exerting his ingenuity to fill their minds with apprehenfions about the nature of orders pretended to oe at that time unknown. If Lord Macartney had fent home a faithful copy of the orders iflued, and if he had accompanied it with a paragraph intimating his difbelief of thefe being the identical orders which General Stuart before his Arreft had intended to iflue, and given his reafons for that difbelief, fuch conduct would have been fair, honourable and unexceptionable ; but when it appears that Lord Macartney, with a perfect knowledge of the orders which General Stuart had iflued to the King's troops, withheld that knowledge from the Directors, this conduct muft autho- rife a fufpicion at leaft, that the difbelief which his Lordlhip has now thought proper to exprefs about the identity of the orders, did not occur to him at the time of his writing to the Directors on the joth of September 1783, and that the only reafon for his withholding from the Directors the orders which had been iflued was, that their con- tents, inftead of confirming, would have ferved to difperfe thofe alarming apprehenfions, which it fuited Lord M.'s purpofe to raife concerning General Stuart's intentions ; it was therefore perfectly con- fiftent, and much more convenient for his Lordfhip, to afllime the ap- pearance of complete ignorance of the real orders^ that he might be at liberty, by the force of his reafoning, to convince the Directors of the defperate and extraordinary nature of any orders that could have been iflued by G. Stuart. The Third Article related to the Perfon employed by General Stuart for diftributing his orders to the King's troops ; -Lord M. has endeavoured to juftify the myfterious paragraph in his Letter to the India Directors on that fubject, and his avoiding the mention of Major G rattan's name, on this ground, that he had never admitted Major Major G rattan's right or pretentious to the office of Adjutant Gene- ral to the King's troops. In this place it needs only be noticed, that the General Orders pf Sir Eyre Coote to all his Majefty's troops in India, had announced Major Grattan as the Adjutant General to thofe troops, and Major Grattan had adually exercifed the duties of that ftation long before General Stuart fucceeded to Sir Eyre Coote in that command. General Stuart did therefore no more than continue Major Grattan in that ftation to which he had been appointed by Sir Eyre Coote. But G. Stuart uniformly maintained, that neither the Prefident, Lord Macartney feparately, nor the Company's government collectively, had any right to interfere with the Staff appointments of the King's army in India, nor with the difcretional exercife of the General's authority in that refpect, in the manner that Lord M. had done in the inftance of Major Grattan the Adjutant General, and in that of Lieut. Colonel Cathcart, the Quarter Mafter General to his Majefly's troops, both of whom were appointed by Sir Eyre Coote. It is not furprifing that Lord Macartney, upon his plan of raifmg apprehenfions concerning what General Stuart intended, mould have chofen to avoid the mention of Major Grattan' s name exprefsly, and that he mould have preferred to it a circumlocution and myfterious tlefcription of the Perfon with whom General Stuart was at that time employed. Lojd M. knew too well the eftablifhed character of that -officer in point of honour, and knowledge of his duty, not to know that wherever Major Grattan's name was mentioned, he weuld be con- iidered as the laft perfon likely to be employed for the execution of any improper defigns ; and his Majefty, by confirming the original appointment of Adjutant General to the King's forces in India, to Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Grattan, has evinced the juft fenfe entertained, both as to the propriety of that meafure, and the merits of that, officer. Major General Stuart, who by various paragraphs in news-papers, and otherwife, has been loudly called upon to give to the Public an ac- count of the Correfpohdence which preceded, and immediately led to the 'the meeting between Lord Macartney and him, abftains at prefei.it from entering into a further refutation of the fads and conjectures re- forted to by Lord Macartney for his j unification, in all or any of the particulars above-mentioned. But he thinks it a duty incumbent on him to declare, that if, con- trary to expectation, he fhould find any impreffions, unfavourable either to hi,mfelf or to the memory of Sir John Burgoyne, created from the fallacious aiTertions and arguments inferted in Lord. Macartney's Note of 6th June to Colonel Gordon, he fhall certainly take an early op- portunity of detecting, by further convincing and unequivocal Proofs, 'Ftrfl, The fallacy arid injuflice of what has been imputed by Lord Macart- ney to Sir John Burgoyne. -Secondly, The abfurdity and injuftice of the commentaries and conjectures to which Lord Macartney has reforted, relative to the orders prepared before the Arreft on the i /th, and actually iffued to the King's troops on the 1 8th September, 1783. And, Thirdly, The futility of the excufe made by Lord Macartney, for avoiding the mention of Major Grattan's -name, in order to convey an impreflion, faife in fact, that General Stuart, having fome defperate purpofe in view, had avoided the regular channel of conveying his orders 'to the King's troops through the Adjutant General, and aflb- ciated himfelf, on that occafion, with fome perfon of a defcription cal- culated for carrying into execution defperate and illegal defigns. (Signed) JAM 8 . STUART- Lower Grofvenor Street, -21-ft June, 1786, SJ5- O er '"V University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. , UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES correspondence !P? Between Lord ^86 Macartney dnd taj or -General Stuart , . . . PS A2P2 1786