30 A COLONIAL AUTOCRACY. 



Paterson's, which was of earlier date. But he and Foveaux 

 decided that this was not the case, and the latter afterwards 

 claimed that in continuing Bligh's arrest, he acted under the 

 orders of his superior officer, Colonel Paterson. His first des- 

 patches, however, those which arrived in March, threw scarcely 

 any light on the causes of his action. 



In those days Secretaries of State for the Colonies had 

 often to decide in the dark or at least the twilight, imagination 

 filling in with more or less success the dim places in the story. 

 The Presidency of Madras supplied a useful precedent, and so 

 similar was the course followed on this occasion, that Lord 

 Castlereagh probably considered that case before it was referred 

 to by the law officers of the Crown in November, 1809. 



It was the case of Lord Pigot, Governor of Madras, and 

 four members of his Council. In 1776 a dispute arose concern- 

 ing the affairs of a native prince, and each party in the Council 

 strove by every means in its power to carry its own point. 

 Both sides used very questionable methods, and finally the 

 majority in the Council, who were opposed to the Governor's 

 measures, by a high-handed and illegal action replaced the head 

 of the forces by a partisan of their own, ordered him to arrest 

 and imprison Lord Pigot, and took upon themselves the govern- 

 ment of the Presidency. Corruption was at the root of the 

 matter, and as usual in such cases the Court of Directors pur- 

 sued a somewhat wavering course. They sent orders to rein- 

 state Lord Pigot, but instructed him to embark for England 

 within a week of such reinstatement. These orders came too 

 late, for Lord Pigot died in prison a week before they reached 

 Madras. They also gave directions to try the officers of the 

 army who were concerned in the disturbance before Courts 

 Martial in India, and recalled four members of the Council. 

 There is nothing which shows that any officers were brought to 

 trial, but some small officials were prosecuted. In England, 

 after a pretence at an inquiry, the East India Company did 

 nothing more with regard to the four members who were the 

 real culprits. But Parliament took the matter up, and in 1779 

 the Attorney-General, in accordance with the terms of an ad- 

 dress of the House of Commons, laid an information against 

 them in the Court of King's Bench, where they were tried before 



