Orders, Decorations, Medals and Militaria

An interesting Elkington & Company silver-plate sugar or bonbon bowl belonging to the XVIII Madras Native Infantry, in the Rococo style, circa 1860, 205mm in width, 130mm in height, engraved with the badge of the XVIII Madras Native Infantry and battle honour ‘Ava’, possibly the only piece in existence as in 1864 the regiment was disbanded for misconduct and erased from the books of the Madras Presidency, good condition for age £150-£200

In 1863, it was found when on examining the cash chest of the Military Pay Office at the station of Cannanore, that a considerable sum had been extracted. No marks of violence were noted and the robbery had been committed by the means of false keys. A pecuniary reward was issued to induce some of the perpetrators to “peach” on others to find the actual robbers. This indeed happened and the actual robbers turned out to be a sergeant and a private of the 18th who had been on guard that day. The 18th seemed incapable of investigating the affair internally and it was handed over to a Mr W. Robinson of the Madras civil police who simply didn't believe anybody.

Events spiralled out of control with the first casualties being the Subahdar-Major and Native Adjutant, who with over 40 years service with the regiment, was dismissed the service with ignominy and without trial or court martial.

An anonymous letter totalling 40 pages to The Examiner, London relates the full story and includes Mr Robinson's findings. The anger felt in Madras is best expressed in the last paragraph of the letter:

‘The Commander-in-Chief's order has converted every Corps in the Madras Army into a Penitentiary and the stigma thus inflicted will become indelible unless steps are taken to remove it. The Madras Army produced Clive, it won Assaye – it was loyal in 1857 when disloyalty would have been our ruin. It is now threatened with intolerable disgrace, not because it has ceased to deserve well of England but because England has placed it under the command of a man incapable by his own showing of discriminating between allegation and proof... It is for the reader to say whether the appeal is unwarranted, the prayer unreasonable.’