I am aware that the opinions which I have expressed are very different from those you have heretofore maintained; but the case is altogether changed. Steps of too bold a nature have been taken, for the officers of the army to retreat; and they will immediately proceed, unless some measure is instantly adopted to arrest them in their infatuated career of guilt. The question has become entirely a practical one, and must be tried as such, as much as if the country was suddenly invaded by an enemy against whom we could use the means most calculated to repel him, without any reference to general principles or to precedent. The fact is, that course has been tried and has failed, and another must be resorted to; and measures must be taken, when the state is in less danger, to infuse better principles, and to establish a more efficient control over our Indian armies. TO LIEUTENANT-COLONEL BARCLAY. (_Most Private._) Masulipatam, 7th July. MY DEAR BARCLAY, You will hear the substance of my late communications to Sir George; and you probably will not quarrel with the opinions I have given, though others may, who think more of maintaining consistency upon paper, than of practical Government. I have no fear now of this garrison doing any thing, unless other parts of the army break out; and that will not, I hope, take place immediately[72]. But something must be done, as the danger of leaving them in this fermenting state increases every hour. They are, in fact, afraid to retract: and shame, despair, and hope, combine to impel them forward. I know they are hastening to their own destruction; but is it politic to let them destroy themselves, even supposing that operation did not hurt Government? Certainly not. And if that extreme can be avoided by any measure which does not substantially affect the authority of Government, it should be adopted. Let us look near this bug-bear principle of consistency, at which some men are so alarmed. The order of the 1st of May was intended to break up a desperate conspiracy against Government, which was in progress. It effected the object: and now that a conspiracy has got head of a more extensive nature, are we not to use the means which seem likely to destroy it, because they are of a different character from those used on the 1st of May, and in some respect abrogates part of that proceeding? It is assuredly the effect which should be our chief and sole object, and we should quarrel with no means that do not _actually_ impair our strength or injure our dignity. Those I have recommended would, I think, raise both.