A report of Major Hart's case, of rice-frauds, near Seringapatam — Inside the Classic
Edition facts
A report of Major Hart's case, of rice-frauds, near Seringapatam — Inside the Classic can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 7,546 words, 33 min estimated reading time, and 1 detected text section.
The text analysis averages about 28.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Hart, George Vaughan, 1752-1832,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
Hart did never carry to the field a quantity of private grain.
And yet, notwithstanding this _pretended_ acknowledgment of _real_ error, it is the Board of Controul which, in order to allow Major Hart to hold private grain, must set aside the very regulation upon this subject. The 39th Regulation says, "it being the principle of the present system, by liberal and avowed allowances, to place this department upon so respectable a footing as to leave no temptation to seek for unauthorized advantages, the Commissary of Grain is not on any account, directly or indirectly, to derive any other advantage or emolument from this situation than the _salary_ fixed by Government. The strictest economy is, therefore, to be observed in every expense attending this department; and the disbursements and accounts of the Commissary are to be attested on honour, as prescribed in the forms annexed to these Regulations.--Papers, p. 17.
And the mighty Board of Controul, besides allowing Major Hart to hold private grain, and therefore to reap the attendant profit on it _with perfect security_, next considers this both as _another question_ and as _not another question_. Thus the Board having said "whether he (Major Hart) ought to have derived any profit upon the original price of the rice, so in his possession, is another question," can yet add, "but _suppose he ought not_, when he[B] openly supplied it to our army, and was contented with much less (profit) than he might have obtained with perfect security, we cannot think it a crime of the blackest die.--Papers, p. 232.
[B] See in page 11, and query he or Captain Macleod; also whether openly or covertly supplied, &c.
The Board continues "this, and the circumstance of his silence, from the 16th to the 22d of April, appear to us the only points of doubt in the whole case, and a conduct doubtful only on two such points does not, in our contemplation, warrant the sentence[C] that has been passed upon it, with the consequences to his fortune and honour to which it has led." Papers, p. 232.
[C] The propriety of Major Hart's dismission, after suspension from the Company's service, is, perhaps, self-evident, and might have been a ground of thanks; but who would have thanked the Court of Directors for being now made to deem correct, what formerly they were pleased to deem incorrect, viz. an Act of Parliament, and the one cited on what are called the Mandamus Papers!
But, "in our contemplation" of this "whole case," there are yet to be noticed other two grand points of doubt. And first, as Lord Harris writes, "it was not the loss of rice in the department of the Commissary of Grain _alone_ that so seriously affected the general store of provision for the army, but," again, secondly, "that infinitely more extensive and entirely unexpected deficiency which was discovered, on the 16th of April, in the quantity carried by bullocks, hired in the Ceded Districts, under the authority of Lieutenant-Colonel Read, and of which Captain Macleod was in the general superintendance."
Lord Harris explains, saying "Captain Macleod, to whom no report of material loss had been made by the carriers on the 3d of April, had, on the 5th, given me a report, of which a copy is enclosed, by which it appeared that rice, the property of government, sufficient for the consumption of 30,000 men, at half a seer per day, for six-and-thirty days, was then in camp, independently of nearly an equal quantity reported by the benjarries (bullock-owners) to be in their possession, and which they had been ordered to retain for the public service. No issues had been authorized from this stock, and the belief that it existed prevented my feeling any uneasiness on the subject of provisions, although I knew the amount in _Major Hart's_ charge was nearly expended. The measurement of the rice on the 15th of April, in the course of delivery (not by, observe, because) to Major Hart, produced the FIRST suspicion of this enormous deficiency, and the report of it, when ascertained the succeeding day, the consequent alarm." Papers, p. 75.
Nor is Lord Harris here alluding towards the whole, but rather to the close of Captain Macleod's Report, where it is stated that "the private and public rice would feed 30,000 men for thirty-three (or, as Lord Harris says, thirty-six) days, exclusive of Major Hart's department. It is supposed Major Hart has 7000 bullock-loads, which would be ten seers each to 30,000 men. (Signed) William Macleod, Superintendant of Supplies." Papers, p. 82.
The report opens with a pointed epigraph: Major Hart’s claim that his dismissal allowed a junior officer, Major-General Macaulay, to command the regiment Hart would have led. This sets the tone for a document built on accusation and counter-accusation. The text moves between Hart’s admissions—he acknowledges carrying private grain to the field—and Macaulay’s rebuttals, which label Hart’s charges as slanderous insinuations. The structure is not a linear narrative but a mosaic of quoted letters, official papers, and editorial commentary, with the author, W. H. Inglis, intervening to highlight contradictions.
A Document of Quarrels
The report’s structure mirrors a legal brief, yet it is driven by personal animus. Inglis juxtaposes Hart’s own words—“I shall not however pretend to defend the act acknowledged of my having carried to the field a quantity of private grain”—with Macaulay’s dismissal of Hart’s motives as a “settled design of placing myself in the command of the fortress of Palamcottah.” The reader is shuttled between the India-House Papers, the Court of Directors, and the Board of Controul, with no single voice dominating. This fragmentary presentation forces the audience to weigh competing claims without a clear arbiter.
Recurring Images of Displacement
A persistent image is that of command and its loss. Hart’s dismissal is described as the moment he lost a regiment and a general officer’s promotion. Macaulay, in turn, insists he never sought the command Hart accuses him of coveting. The report returns to this theme of displacement—Hart displaced by Macaulay, Macaulay displacing Hart’s narrative with his own. The physical setting—Seringapatam, Palamcottah, Tinnevelly—is less a place than a stage for these positional struggles. Even the grain itself becomes a symbol of transgression: private property carried into a public military system.
The Role of the Appendix
The appendix, addressed to the Proprietors of East-India Stock, shifts the report’s audience from military tribunals to shareholders. Here Inglis adopts a more direct, even sarcastic tone, quoting Hart’s newspaper advertisement and mocking his threat to sue for slander. He draws parallels to an earlier case—Mr. Sherson’s—and insinuates that a barrister, Charles Marsh, may have authored Hart’s libellous letter. This section functions as a call to action, urging the Proprietors to question why Parliament has not intervened. The appendix thus transforms the report from a mere record into a piece of advocacy.
Movement Between Public and Private Records
The text constantly shifts between what is officially printed and what remains private. Inglis notes that two papers—a letter from Henry Dundas and an enclosure—were inserted into Company records despite never being officially communicated to the Court of Directors. He also points out that Hart’s libellous letter was not printed by the Court but circulated by Hart himself. This movement between public and private spheres underscores the report’s central tension: who controls the narrative? The reader is left to navigate a landscape where documents are selectively released, and where the boundary between evidence and slander is blurred.
Readers should approach this report as a contested document rather than an impartial account. Pay attention to who is quoting whom and why. The frequent footnotes and cross-references to the India-House Papers are not mere citations but weapons in a rhetorical war. The report’s value lies less in establishing facts than in exposing the machinery of accusation within the East India Company’s hierarchy.
Years among these stacks teach how one document’s tangled accusations—those rice frauds near Seringapatam, all heat and ruined reputations—can find a quiet mirror in Londinium, Architecture and the Crafts — Reading Companion, where brick and timber stand steadier than any testimony. Both whisper of empires building their own closures, stone and ink alike. I often shelve them together, old friends holding different drafts of the same patience.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
How did this book work for you?
Your answers remain private and are stored only in this browser.