NAPIERIANA.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 2, 3 January 1931, Page 8 (Supplement)

NAPIERIANA.

A FAMOUS COMMANDER.

MADE HISTORY IN INDIA

(By HORACE WYNDHAM.)

General Sir Charles James Napier, G.C.8., held office as Commander-in-CMef in India for 22 months, landing at Calcutta in the summer of 1849, and returning to England in the spring of 3 Sol. A short period, yet one in which much military, history was written. The decision to send Sir Charles Napier back to the country where he had already distinguished himself was said to have been primarily due to "that paroxysm of alarm and distrust aroused in England by the news of Lord Gough's dearly-won and indecisive victories over the Sikhs." As a result, the Duke of Wellington was asked to suggest a successor. He suggested Charles Napier's younger brother, George, who declined the post. Things were at a deadlock when the heavy losses occurring in the battle of Chillianwalla forced the Government to meet the wishes of the public and offer the position to Sir Charles. It was not the choice of the court of directors, for the "Conqueror of Scinde" and "John Company" were not on good terms. But the Queen was insistent; and the day after Lord John Russell told the House of Commons Her Majesty's views on the' subject the '"honourable court" confirmed them. Still, they did so with bad grace, and actually proposed that the appointment should not carry with it a seat on the Council of India. On May 6, 1849, Sir Charles Napier, amid a salute from the guns of Fort William, landed at Calcutta. He got to work very promptly, his first official act being to inspect the 96th foot. As was his custom, be delivered a speech full of characteristic "Napierisms." "Let us give you a bit of advice," he said to the assembled troops, "I know that young men don't think much about advice from old men. They think they know a good deal better than the old cove who talks to them. Still, let me tell you that you've come to a country where you're dead men if you drink. I know "two regiments in India. One drank; the other didn't. The one that didn't drink is one of the best. The other has been all but destroyed. There are, I know, some men who will drinkin spite of the devil and their officers. But such men will soon be in hospital; and very few that go there ever come out again." In his speeches, of which he delivered many, Sir Charles was always unconventional. Thus, addressing the Ist Fusiliers at Agra, he observed: "I have ordered you to Lahore. If there is any dust to be kicker up thSre, you shall be in it." On another occasion he complained of his restricted powers. "The only people," he said, "I have any over in all India are the apothecaries. Yet I cannot give one of them a dose of medicine without first getting leave from the Military Board to expend their damned medical stores." A Cause Celebre. Sir Charles had .not been long in the saddle when there occurred the celebrated case of Mr. Morgan v., Mrs. Rowe. The former was a civilian, and the latter was the wife of an ex-non-commis-sioned officer. The lady's version of the incident was that, to bring a little grist to the family mill, she sold some cheese to a Mr. Raikes. When the account* Avas settled in a memorandum directed to her husband, she wrote back requesting to be informed "what impertinent ass has the presumption to style Mr Rowe sergeant?" A Mr. Morgan took this search for knowledge as applying to himself, and complained to Napier that he had been "insulted." Further he suggested that "disciplinary action" should be taken against the husba'nd, whom he held responsible for madam's breach of etiquette, Ihis drew a characteristic reply: I am unable to give you any* redress, because my commission as Commander-in-Chief gives me no power to make ladies apologise for being saucy, which is an unfortunate , habit they fall into at times, and more especially those who are good-looking, which I suppose Mrs. Sergeant Rowe happens to be. As to the sergeant having written the letter, that is neither here nor there. Some husbands cannot help doing as they are ordered, and he may be innocent of malice. ... If possible, Major Tucker will endeavour to persuade the lady to apologise for calling you an ass." Sca'nt comfort, this, but Mr. Morgan had to be content with it. Sir Charles Napier was not called ' the soldier's friend" for nothing. The comfort and well-being of Mr. (and Mrs.) Atkins were matters with which lie specially concerned himself. "The practice of allowing married families to occupy verandahs, while single men occupy the centre rooms, is prohibited" was one of his instructions; and if separate barracks did not exist for their accommodation, he directed that additional quarters should be built. Then, too, during a "surprise visit" to Agra, "he tasted the bread and abused the contractors, adding that 'he would like to hang every contractor in the country.'" Nor were officers encouraged to ask for leave of absence "on urgent private affairs" too often. "The private soldier," he pointed out, "has the same constitution 1 - as his officers. He suffers equally from the effects of heat. He never has any leave. . . Nor is it very encouraging to him to see his officers scampering off to the hills the moment the heat begins.'' Requests for special favours also met with his strong disapproval. "H.E. the Commander-in-chief," he once observed in a memorandum from Simla, "lias received the most extraordinary letters from officers commanding corps, both regular and irregular, praying to have the destination of their regiments changed. Tie Commander-in-chief begs to inform these gentlemen that the troops are moved to suit the public con-' venience, and not the convenience of individuals; and he desires that such an unsoldier-like and disorderly practice may not again take place to the disgrace of military discipline,'' Drill and Debts. Napier had well-defined views concerning barrack-square routine. "And now, you youngsters," he once said to the garrison at Umballali, "just a few words as to drill. I know it is often tiresome and disheartening and annoying, but you remember that it is drill that makes companies and regiments and brigades and divisions act together." At the customary "pow-wow" after a review it was his habit to deliver himself of caustic comments if he observed anything that required criticism. "The Commander-in-Chief," he declared, "will not tpass over without animadversion faults -which, if. tolerated, would, in the e v cut of war, produce certain defeat

to this army." Some of his "strafes" were very severe. A characteristic one was administered by him on the conclusion of a garrison parade at Meean Meer:— "A disgraceful scene, exhibiting both want of drill and want of discipline! . . If ever such again happens, he will expose the commanding officers of any regiment that so disgraces itself in public orders to the whole of the Indian Army. . . The Commander-in-Chief does not hereby call on commanding officers to torment those under their orders by long and harassing drilling. But he does call upon them to instruct their officers, and to instruct- themselves, and also their supernumerary ranks." Debts, as well as drink and drill, also occupied the veteran's attention. The subject was one on which he felt very strongly, and on which he was accustomed to express himself in very strong terms. His tongue, indeed, was as sharp as Ms sword. A Caustic Homily. "A considerable amount of my time," he wrote, "has been taken up in the examination of weekly, if not of daily, complaints against officers for nonsettlement of debts. lam not merely a rich man speaking to those who are poor men, I have known poverty, and I have lived for years on less than half of what every ensign in this Army receives, and I have lived so, too, in a more expensive country than India. Some young men get commissions without having had much education, or, perhaps, a vulgar one, which is worse. These officers are not aware that honesty is inseparable from the character of a thoroughbred gentleman. A vulgar man, who 'essays a champagne tiffin and swindles his servants,' may be a pleasant companion to those who do not hold him in contempt as a vulgar knave, but he is not a gentleman!" Among the principal causes of debt, Sir Charles blamed "the extravagance of messes, and the feeling that it is manly to be dishonourable," the "constant marching of regiments," and, last,, but by no means least, "borrowing from the banks." Inadequacy of pay, however, was not admitted by Mm. "The pay of ~ nillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllM

an ensign," he declared, "is sufficient I for his just expenditure. I know that every ensign in India can live well on 1 his pay." j Unfortunately, he did not tell them how to do it. j Still, with a desire to save the pockets of the younger officers, he took up the 1 matter of uniform, and delivered himself of a pronouncement on the subject: "His Excellency, the Commander-in-Chief, considering it highly desirable that a plainer style of dress than the l very expensive uniform at present worn by the officers of the Ist European Bengal Fusiliers should henceforth be adopted, is pleased, with the sanction of the Most Noble the Governor-General of India, to authorise the gradual introduction into that corps of the uniform prescribed for Fusilier regiments in Her Majesty's service." Sir Charles himself certainly favoured a "plain style;" and he is said to have affected "a jockey cap, a tussore coat, and a pair of white unmentionables, which appeared to have already done their duty." . u Officers who incurred bills they could not meet were apt to be dealt with by court-martial. In 1850 a captain was tried for "unbecoming conduct, in ! having, on groundless and frivolous pre- | tences, evaded payment of a just debt j due to the mess of the Ist Bengal Fusi-.j liers." As a result, he lost a step in A much more serious case was that of l an adjutant, tried for "unofficerlike con- ( duct," in borrowing money _ from a sergeant, not paying rent for his bungalow, and withholding the wages of his servants. Altogether, there were live separate counts, and the sentence was "to be very severely reprimanded." The j "strafe" was administered by Sir Charles 1 in the following terms: "Lieutenant Fansliaw! I do not understand why the court-martial did not cashier you, as, in my opinion, it should have done. Pußlic duty makes me regret that you have escaped from a , just punishment; but I shall rejoice if 1 the very lenient penalty inflicted may improve your conduct as a British officer." I i Gambling and Drink. ! Gambling was another "red rag" to i the Commander-in-Chief. Convicted by court-martial of such an offence, a captain of the 58th Native Infantry, who . had won several thousand rupees from a brother officer, was reduced to the bottom of the list of his rank; a gunner subaltern at Uinballah was cashiered for "failing to redeem a promissory note lie had given"; and, in July, 1850, three young officers of the 22nd Foot, and one of the 00th Rifles, found guilty at a Simla court-martial of "gaming and betting at backgammon," were ordered to be "reprimanded in such a fashion as the Commander-in-Chief may direct." A very scandalous case occurred in October, 1850, when a Mr. MacChlery, of the Civil Service, reported that marked cards were used while he was playing whist at a mess. He admitted, however, that this fact was known to himself and his partner. "In my opinion," was Napier's comment, "he would better ( have consulted his own respectability had he not forced this inquiry"; and added, "I have no power to take notice of Mr. MacChlery's conduct. He is not amenable to the orders of the Com-mander-in-Chief." Still, the other gamblers were in a different position, ,

' and were "reprimanded for their direct * and premeditated breach of discipline." ■ Under the circumstances, they got off very lightly. ! Drink was also the cause of .the down- ■ fall of several officers during Napier's • regime. Of one who was cashiered for drunkenness, he declared: "The Service has lost a clever officer; and an honourable family is thrown into deep affliction; and a young man of j great promise is utterly ruined in his I profession." j Another homily was issued by him when Lientenant Ashton, of the 53rd Foot, was dismissed the Army for "scandalous conduct, in having been in a ; state of intoxication in his quarters." Having confirmed the sentence, he added: "The being intoxicated after dinner, however unbecoming and disgraceful it is to the character of a well-bred gentleman, may still have the pretext of conviviality for a thoughtless, but culpable, excess in a young man. This, however, is not the crime of the prisoner. His has been deliberate drunkenness, a glaring disregard of decency in the broad face of day; an act destructive to all society, all discipline, all moral feelings, and calculated to make the uniform of a British officer a by-word and a shame! I will not pardon Lieutenant Ashton." This decision had repercussions. According to a journalist, "the mother of the unhappy young man wrote to Sir Charles Napier, and told him that her son, so far from being a dissolute character, had regularly remitted to her a considerable portion of his meagre allowance for the support of his younger brothers and sisters. . . . Thereupon, the perverse old warrior, seeking to reconcile the claims of duty with the impulses of I humanity, sent the lady the price of an | ensign's commission from his private I funds, thus atoning for the hardships of justice by an act of liberal generosity." The veteran, however, exhibited no such soft spot towards a surgeon who had been found guilty of neglect and recommended to mercy. "I am sorry," he said, "that I cannot comply with the recommendation of the Court. , There appears to be no excuse for the IIIIIIII!!II!!!!!!I!!!III!IIIIII!IIIIIIIII1I1IIIIIM

prisoner's conduct. He seems to be above the duties of his profession, since he deems it beneath him to attend the sick wives and children of British soldiers." But, just as he could be severe, so also could he be lenient. "I pardon Ensign Dobbs," he "minuted" on one occasion. "His frank avowal of, and regret for, his misconduct, together with his promise to be steady in future, convince me that no reprimand is necessary, though very properly sentenced by the Court."