« AnteriorContinuar »
vent men from being corrupted by the world, by corrupting them before their entry into the world, they can then only be looked upon as evils of the greatest magnitude, however they may be sanctioned by opinion, or rendered familiar to us by habit. The vital and essential part of a school is the master; but, at a public school, no boy, or, at the best, only a very few, can see enough of him to derive any considerable benefit from his character, manners, and information. It is certainly of eminent use, particularly to a young man of rank, that he should have lived among boys; but it is only so when they are all moderately watched by some superior understanding. The morality of boys is generally very imperfect; their notions of honour extremely mistaken; and their objects of ambition frequently very absurd. The probability then is, that the kind of discipline they exercise over each other will produce (when left to itself) a great deal of mischief; and yet this is the discipline to which every child at a public school is not only necessarily exposed, but principally confined. Our objection (we again repeat) is not to the interference of boys in the formation of the character of boys; their character, we are persuaded, will be very imperfectly formed without their assistance; but our objection is to that almost exclusive agency which they exercise in public schools. After having said so much in opposition to the general prejudice in favour of public schools, we may be expected to state what species of school we think preferable to them; for if public schools, with all their disadvantages, are the best that can actually be found, or easily attained, the objections to them are certainly made to very little purpose. e have no hesitation, however, in saying, that that education seems to us to be the best which mingles a domestic with a school life, and which gives to a youth the advantage which is to be derived from the learning of a master, and the emulation which results from the society of other boys, together with the affectionate vigilance which he must experience in the house of his parents. But where this species of education, from peculiarity of circumstances or situation, is not attainable, we are disposed to think a society of twenty or thirty boys, under the guidance of a learned man, and, above all, of a man of good sense, to be a seminary the best adapted for the education of youth. The numbers are sufficient to excite a considerable degree of emulation, to give to a boy some insight into the diversities of the human character, and to subject him to the observation and control of his superiors. It by no means follows, that a judicious man should always interfere with his authority and advice, because he has always the means; he may connive at many things which he cannot approve, and suffer some little failures to proceed to a certain extent, which, if indulged in wider limits, would be attended with irretrievable mischief: he will be aware that his object is to fit his pupil for the world; that constant control is a very bad preparation for complete emancipation from all control; that it is not bad policy to expose a young man, under the eye of superior wisdom, to some of those dangers which will assail him hereafter in greater number, and in greater strength — when he has only his own resources to depend upon. A private education, conducted upon these principles, is not calculated to gratify quickly the vanity of a parent who is blest with a child of strong character and preeminent abilities: to be the first scholar of an obscure master, at an obscure place, is no very splendid distinction; nor does it afford that opportunity, of which so many parents are desirous, of forming great connections for their children: but if the object be to induce the young to love knowledge and virtue, we are inclined to suspect, that, for the average of human talents and characters, these are the situations in which such tastes will be the most effectually formed.
DISTURBANCES AT MADRA.S. (E. Review, 1810.)
Narrative of the Origin and Progress of the Dissensions at the Presidency of Madras, founded on Original Papers and Correspondence. Lloyd, London, 1810.
Account of the Origin and Progress of the late Discontents of the Army on the Madras Establishment. Cadell and Davies, London, 1810.
Statement of Facts delivered to the Right Honourable Lord Minto. By William Petrie, Esq. Stockdale, London, 1810.
THE disturbances which have lately taken place in our East Indian possessions would, at any period, have excited a considerable degree of alarm ; and those feelings are, of course, not a little increased by the ruinous aspect of our European affairs. The revolt of an army of eighty thousand men is an event which seems to threaten so nearly the ruin of the country in which it happens, that no common curiosity is excited as to the causes which could have led to it, and the means by which its danger was averted. On these points, we shall endeavour to exhibit to our readers the information afforded to us by the pamphlets whose titles we have cited. The first of these is understood to be written by an agent of Sir George Barlow, sent over for the express purpose of defending his measures; the second is most probably the production of some one of the dismissed officers, or, at least, founded upon their representations; the third statement is by Mr. Petrie, and we most cordially recommend it to the perusal of our readers. It is characterised, throughout, by moderation, good sense, and a feeling of duty. We have seldom read a narrative, which, on the first face of it, looked so much like truth. It has, of course, produced the ruin and dismissal of this gentleman, though we have not the shadow of doubt, that if his advice had been followed, every unpleasant occurrence which has happened in India might have been effectually prevented. In the year 1802, a certain monthly allowance, proportioned to their respective ranks, was given to each officer of the Coast army, to enable him to provide himself with camp equipage; and a monthly allowance was also made to the commanding officers of the native corps, for the provision of the camp equipage of these corps. This arrangement was commonly called the tent contract. Its intention (as the pamphlet of Sir George Barlow's agent very properly states) was to combine facility of movement in military operations with views of economy. In the general revision of its establishments, set on foot for the purposes of economy by the Madras Government, this contract was considered as entailing upon them a very unnecessary expense; and the then commander-inchief, General Craddock, directed Colonel Munro, the quarter-master-general, to make a report to him upon the subject. The report, which was published almost as soon as it was made up, recommends the abolition of this contract; and, among other passages for the Support of this opinion, has the following one : —
“Six years’ experience of the practical effects of the existing system of the camp equipage equipment of the native army, has afforded means of forming a judgment relative to its advantages and efficiency, which were not possessed by the persons who proposed its introduction ; and an attentive examination of its operations during that period of time has suggested the following observations regarding it: —
After stating that the contract is needlessly expensive —that it subjects the Company to the same charges for troops in garrison as for those in the field—the report proceeds to state the following observation, made on the authority of six years' experience and attentive ea'amination.
‘Thirdly. By granting the same allowances in peace and war for the equipment of native corps, while the expenses incidental to that charge are unavoidably much greater in war than in peace, it places the interest and duty of officers commanding native corps in direct opposition to one another. It makes it their interest that their corps should not be in a state of efficiency fit for field service, and therefore furnishes strong inducements to neglect their most important duties.'— Accurate and Authentic Narrative, pp. 117, 118.
Here, then, is not only a proposal for reducing the emoluments of the principal officers of the Madras army, but a charge of the most flagrant nature. The first they might possibly have had some right to consider as a hardship; but, when severe and unjust invective was superadded to strict retrenchment—when their pay and their reputation were diminished at the same time —it cannot be considered as surprising, that such treatment, on the part of the Government, should lay the foundation for a spirit of discontent in those troops who had recently made such splendid additions to the Indian empire, ...} established, in the progress of these acquisitions, so high a character for discipline and courage. It must be remembered, that an officer on European and on Indian service, are in very different situations, and propose to themselves very different objects. The one never thinks of making a fortune by his profession, while the hope of ultimately gaining an independence is the principal motive for which the Indian officer banishes himself from his country. To diminish the emoluments of his profession is to retard the period of his return, and to frustrate the purpose for which he exposes his life and health in a burning climate, on the other side of the world. We make these observations, certainly, without any idea of denying the right of the East India Company to make any retrenchments they may think proper, but to show that it is a right which ought to be exercised with great delicacy and with sound discretion—that it should only be exercised when the retrenchment is of real importance—and, above all, that it should always be accompanied with every mark of suavity and conciliation. Sir George Barlow, on the contrary, committed the singular imprudence of stigmatising the honour, and wounding the feelings of the Indian officers. At the same moment that he diminished their emoluments, he