gerous from there being no evil design on the part of the writer." In the evidence of Thomas Love Peacock, Esq., Senior Assistant Examiner of India Correspondence before the Select Parliamentary Committee, in 1834, the following history of the Censorship on the Press in India is given : "The first case is that of Mr. William Duane, who was sent home, by the power vested in the Government, in the year 1794. Then there are two or three other cases which may be passed over. The next is the case of Captain Williamson, in 1798, who had published a letter in one of the Calcutta papers which was considered by the Government to be a letter tending to excite military insubordination. He was suspended from the Company's service, and came home; he was afterwards permitted to return to India. The next is the case of Mr. Charles M'Lean, who was sent home in the same year (1798) for an offence against the Government. The next important circumstance is the imposition of Censorship. After several other instances of misconduct, the Censorship was imposed on the 13th of May, 1799. After this there were several prohibitory orders issued to the editors of newspapers not to insert anything relating to military matters, and two or three times rules were laid down for the conduct of the press and the printing offices generally. The next occurrence to which I need advert, is the improper conduct of the editor of the Asiatic Mirror, Dr. Bryce. After this, in 1818, on the 28th of August, the Censorship * Vide Report of Select Committee on the Calcutta Journal. was removed, and rules were laid down for the conduct of the press, which they were expected to ob serve." Lord Mornington appears, in some degree, to have been influenced in this course of policy by the representations made to his Lordship when at the Cape of Good Hope, by Major Kirkpatrick, an officer who had recently been British Resident at Hyderabad. The following passage in the answer to the second question, occurs in Major Kirkpatrick's report: "There cannot, perhaps, be a fitter occasion than the present for remarking on the pernicious effects too often produced (I confine myself in what I say to the Court of Hyderabad) by such of our Indian newspapers as are conducted either by inconsiderate or by ill-principled men; but especially by the latter. The Residency has more than once, in its attempts to prove the falsehood or exaggeration of certain reports respecting the French successes, been gravely referred for the authenticity of them to English prints; nor has it unfrequently happened that such falsehoods or exaggerations have appeared in papers professing to to be published by authority, or at least enjoying the favour of Government. The Bombay Courier (which is in exclusive possession of all the public business of that Presidency), and the Asiatic Mirror (a Calcutta print) fall particularly under the description of papers managed by persons of politically evil dispositions. The arguments in vindication of the unrestrained freedom of the press in England certainly cannot be reasonably or fairly applied to the state of British society in India. It is difficult, in VOL. I. U deed, to conceive any political good or right it can serve to promote or secure among the latter; while, on the other hand, the danger to the national interests in such a country, with which it is pregnant, is very considerable. I am not likely to be supposed desirous of the abolition of the Indian press, were such a thing practicable; but certainly every reflecting man and good subject must wish to see its communication of, and comments on public events under better regulations than they are at present." Sincerely admiring the character of the great man whose policy we are discussing, and compelled by the weight of irresistible evidence to acknowledge the general wisdom and utility of his proceedings, it is a subject of regret to the writer to be obliged to exhibit this part of Lord Wellesley's public conduct in an unfavourable light: but fidelity, as well to historic truth as to the principles of public freedom,* forbid suppression of matter of fact and concealment of opinion on so important a subject. Beside, we are not without reasons for believing * "The proposition I mean to maintain is this:—that a man not intending to mislead, but seeking to enlighten others with what his own reason and conscience, however erroneously, have dictated to him as truth, may address himself to the universal reason of a whole nation, either upon the subject of governments in general, or upon that of our own particular country; that he may analyse the principles of its constitution, point out its errors and defects, examine and publish its corruptions, and warn his fellow-citizens against their ruinous consequences, and exert his whole faculties in pointing out the most advantageous changes in establishments which he considers to be radically defective, or sliding from their objects by abuse. All this every subject of this country has a right to do, if he contemplates only what he thinks would be for its advantage, and but seeks to change the public mind by the conviction that flows from reasonings dictated by conscience".-Erskine. that the matured judgment of the Marquess Wellesley coincided with his early sentiments of respect for the institution of a free press expressed in the Irish House of Lords, and condemned as indiscreet the exercise of power that has called forth these remarks. In the edition of the Dispatches published under his Lordship's superintendence, though a part of Lord Mornington's letter to Sir Alured Clarke, of the 17th of April, 1799, has been printed, the passages referring to the Calcutta newspapers do not appear. The letter of the 26th of April is entirely omitted: and the passage from Major Kirkpatrick's report, quoted above, has been erased from the printed copy; having been crossed out in the original manuscript, apparently by Lord Wellesley's pen. The fact that the noble Lord bequeathed his collection of papers to the nation, proves that he neither desired concealment nor feared scrutiny: but the circumstances just mentioned seem to warrant the inference that he did not desire his policy towards the press of India to be held up as a model for imitation. CHAPTER XIV. Tippoo Sultaun, instead of proceeding on a Hunting Expedition, commences a March to attack General Stuart at Seedapore, five days before the British entered Mysore.-Defeated in his Attack on General Stuart's Force.—Retreats.—Re-crosses Mysore, and falls upon the Divisions of Colonel Wellesley and General Floyd at Mallavelly.—Tippoo suffers a severe Defeat.- Retreats to Seringapatam.-General Harris advances. Operations of the Army before Seringapatam. — Tippoo Sultaun's Letter to General Harris.-The General's Reply.-Operations continued.-Second Letter from Tippoo.--General Harris transmits the Terms of the only Peace that would be granted.-Tippoo declines to accept them.-Writes again.-Preparations for storming Seringapatam.-Tippoo's Fortitude and Valour.-General Baird leads the Assault.-Capture of the Fortress and City.-Death of Tippoo Sultaun.-Forbearance of the British Troops.-The Sultaun's Family and Zenana respected.-Consequences of the Fall of Seringapatam.-Letter of General Harris in a Sealed Quill to Lord Mornington.-Letter of Major Beatson to his Lordship. IN Tippoo's letter to Lord Mornington, received on the 13th of February, he announced his intention of proceeding on a hunting expedition. The only game, however, which his Highness really contemplated pursuing was a British General,-which in former times had not unfrequently been the object of his chase. Having succeeded in raising an expectation that it was his intention to move in the direction of Mangalore, he secretly left his camp on the 28th of February, at the head of twelve thousand men, and rapidly marching across the country, passed the frontier, and quitting his |