MORE "NAPIERIANA."

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 14, 17 January 1931, Page 8 (Supplement)

MORE "NAPIERIANA."

SIR CHARLES NAPIER IN INDIA

COtTftT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS

HIGH-HANDED MARTINET

(By HORACE WYNDHAM.)

Napier kept a very strict eye on courts-martial. It seems to have been wanted, for some of the members of these tribunals had very elementary notions of how to conduct their business. Thus, in one instance, he wrote: "Confirmed. I cannot say 'approved,' for I never read such inefficient proceedings in my life. Court, officiating JudgeAdvocate and evidence all inefficient! The prisoner must return to his duty." If Napier did not like the proceedings of a court-martial he would express himself very strongly on the subject. _A case in point occurred at Lahore in 1850, when a man of the 14th Light Dragoons was sentenced to be transported for using threatening language to his commanding officer. The circumstances were out of the common, for the offence was committed just after fifty lashes had been inflicted on him. "This soldier,' wrote Napier, "was flogged ill a state of intoxication. When freed from the triangles, the prisoner, infuriated by having drunk nearly two bottles of arrack and some rum in the guard-room, became outrageous and abusive, as might lia.ve been foreseen. I ask the Court to mitigate its sentence." As the Court declined to do so, Napier took another step. "I have no alternati've," he said, "but to pardon the prisoner. . . I assure the' Court' that great severity, without full consideration' of all the circumstances, is not justice, and is not conducive to discipline."

This, regiment, the 14th Light Dragoons, gave Napier a good deal oi trouble, and a number of courts-martial were held. It was not a "happy" regiment, for the commanding officer, Lieut.Colonel King, had a knack of getting the worst, instead of the best, out of the men. Still, this did not excuse Private Springett declaring that he would knock his old head off. As he also informed a sergeant that "he would shift his ear," he got off fairly easily with fifty lashes and eighteen months' imprisonment. Private Dugleby, too, received fourteen years' transportation, the charge of which he was convicted being that of "vilifying his commanding officer by imputing /to him cowardice in action." Napier declared, "the sentence is illegal, and must be changed." Thereupon, it was altered to fifty lashes and three years' hard labour.

Disciplinary Discretions. Disciplinarian though he was, Napier was not fond of the cat-o'-nine-tails. Perhaps he had seen too much of it, to consider it a remedy for misconduct. Thus, when a private of the 60th Rifles was sentenced to fifty lashes for wilfully destroying his knapsack, he instructed the accused's colonel "to remit the flogging if he thinks such leniency will have a proper effect in improving the conduct of the prisoner." Again, when similar sentence was awarded Private Mackenzie for; telling the adjutant, "1 will not shoulder a firelock," he merely observed: "I pardon the prisoner, and desire his commanding-officer to admonish him as to his future' behaviour, and that this sort of sulky conduct cannot be permitted." When, however, a comrade was sent to the triangles for throwing a bottle at an N.C.0., he wrote, "approved and confirmed." He was also of opinion that fifty lashes would cure a man who had been found "■uilty of "disgraceful conduct in stealing four bottles of beer from LieutenantColonel Ponsonby." Still, he refused to sanction , the "cat" in another case, because "it "was not applicable to the particular crime of which the accused was convicted."

Recommendations to mercy were always acted on by Napier if he considered them well founded. There was one such advanced on belialf of a drillsergeant who was convicted of nrrng a pistol at a Mrs. Caroline Brock. 1 have n-reat pleasure," he wrote, "in complying with the recommendation, as I cannot believe that a brave and good soldier, as the prisoner is said to be, could have intended to injure a woman." Again, when an insubordinate warrior got into trouble for drunkenness and striking a sergeant, he issued the . following memorandum: "The prisoner is a very young soldier, and his character has been good. I will leave him in the bands of Lieutenant-Colonel Markham, to remit any portion of the punishment he pleases; and I am sure that Sergeant James Lees will willingly forgive this -young vagabond the insult wnich. he offered him"; and of another he said, "1 will remit half the punishment, an the hope tlmt my leniency will make him a better soldier in future.

Native Troops.

The Queen's army was not, of course, Napier's only care. During his service in India he devoted much attention to ' the troops of "John Company." He had a high opinion of the sepoy, founded on his experience of him in battle. The ; sepoy," he wrote, "is both a brave, and an obedient soldier; and whenever he. behaves ill, it is in great measure the ! fault of his commanding officer." None ' the less, certain units were not amenable i to discipline; and in 1849 severals acts lof insubordination manifested them-

selves. Thereupon the Commander-in- ~ Chief published a stern warning: ! 'An officer, non-commisaioncd officer : or soldier who comes to the knowledge of, and conceals from his superiors, the existence of a mutinous spirit in any 1 regiment, shall receive no mercy from me." The trouble arose from dissatisfac-

tion as to pay; and a long string of courts-martial were assembled to deal . with the recalcitrants. Sir Charles would not admit that they had anything at ; which to grumble. "I have seen most of the armies in the world," he said, /'and I have never seen one that is i better paid, or better cared for, than the army of the East India Company. . . M will not allow a few discontented, 1 malignant scoundrels to disgrace their I colours and their regiments by an insolent attempt to dictate to tills Governiinent what pay that Government shall trive its soldiers, towards whom it has always been both just and generous. . . > Some mutinous villains have had the j ■insolence to demand the continuation ! 0 f such pay when the Punjab has beIrnme a province of British territory. ! Woe to those who so disgrace their regiWoe be to those who, forgetting fflfduU.. soldiers of the State, < i thfi infamous conduct of .conceal Jiav ildar, .Kunjeet Sing, ; mutineers. {ho 32n d Native Infantas done tin h nliscon duct on the 'jtrjV a " d J° havilclar forty years good Se V" 1 * h " n wind!" a i m

Napier had promised the malcontents "no mercy." They got none. Dismissal, transportation and imprisonment were meted out with an unsparing hand. Once, when a sentence of fourteen years' hard labour was passed on three sepoys, convicted of "inciting mutiny," the stern old veteran was filled with anger. "1 call on this courtmartial to do its duty," he wrote. "I ask the officers composing this courtmartial whether they, as honourable soldiers, think that fourteen years' imprisonment with hard labour is an adequate punishment for the ruffians. . .

I beg of the court to reconsider its sense of the consequences which may result from the crime of these heinous offenders. Let it sentence a punishment commensurate witn their damnable projects." Thus instructed, the members of the court-martial altered the sentence to "death by hanging." Napier's laconic comment was "approved and confirmed." "A Terrible Fate." He had another brisk passage with a court-martial which sentenced a Sepoy to seven years' transportation for assaulting a Subadar at Cawnpore. "If armed soldiers," he observed, "are to step out of the ranks and thrust their bayonets into their officers, or anyone whom it may please them to treat in this manner, there is an eivd of discipline." Acting on the hint thus given, them, the Court changed the sentence to transportation for life. This would seem to have met Napier's views, since he wrote, "approved and confirmed." To this expression of opinion, he added: "Long years of imprisonment, till death puts an end to the criminal's miseries, is a terrible fate! Let the bad soldier of the Indian Armies consider it. To the good soldier, no caution is required."

A similar sentence was passed on a private of the 80th Foot. But perhaps he was "asking for it," as, in addition to "wantonly destroying a musket issued to him for the public service," he had declared that one of his officers w;ts a "damned swindler" and a "hangmanlooking rascal," and that the adjutant was a "damned scoundrel," or words to that effect.

Yet Sir Charles could always temper justice with mercy. Thus, when a native officer, with 30 years' service, was convicted of "disrespect," lie cancelled his punishment. A solemn warning accompanied the decision: "The prisoner is to be told that such unjustifiable ebullitions of ill-temper cannot be submitted to, and if lie again transgresses he will not again be pardoned." In another case, when a havildar was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks and to undergo six months' imprisonment for "great neglect and carelessness," he remarked, "I think the sentence is inadequate to the crime." Thereupon, the Court doubled it. "Approved a!nd confirmed," wrote Napier. Having, however, got his way, he then added: "I will remit the hard labour, for reasons which I do not' choose to make public." Nor was a humble camp follower beneath his notice. "I pardon the prisoner in consideration of the recommendation of the Court, and because the boy seems >to have been in the hands of a set of knaves," he "minuted" when one such individual was awarded two years' imprisonment for theft. Napier's "farewell address" was issued from . Ferozepore in December, 1850. After reviewing various matters that in his opinion called for attention, he added a characteristic passage:

"I can only offer my advice as I quit the scene. To-day, lam Commander-in-Chief. A week hence, I shall be no more to the Armies of India than a private gentleman. But .the Armies of India must ever be much and dear to me! For'nine years, my whole energies, such as they are, have been devoted to the honour and glory of the company's troops. I may say that • I have become identified with the armies of the three Presidencies as much as if I had risen from their ranks. I have jealously guarded their honour, and I have fought at their head! I leave them for ever; but, in the retirement of private life, although no longer able to serve them, the destinies of the Indian Armies will ever occupy my thoughts." A Speech-Making General. ■■

1 Fond as he himself was of making speeches, Sir Charles had a very strong objection to anyone else indulging in the practice. Thus, he approved and confirmed the sentence of a courtmartial" on a captain who had let his tongue run away with him. _ "Those officers," he declared, "who imagine that this army is a debating society will find themselves egregiously mistaken." Yet, some of his own oratorical utterances were such as would have got the occupants of less lofty positions into considerable trouble. There was, for example, an odd ring about one which he delivered at a farewell banquet given in his honour at Karrachee in January, 1851:—

"If general officers are unfit to command, the'n in God's name do not appoint them to command. I must say there are nine out of ten who ought not to be appointed. But I hold that when a general is appointed to; command he ought to be treated as such, and should not be dictated to by boy politicals, who do not belong to the Army, and who know nothing whatever of military science."

Three days later, at another public dinner, Sir Charles alluded to the circumstances under which he was resigning and returning to England. As before, he did not mince his words: "I take credit to myself," he told his hearers, "for my zeal to my country, and for the welfare, honourj and glory of India. I am called an enemy of the directors. No, lam not one. But whe'n lam ill treated, I resist. This is mere independence, independence - of spirit which, old as I am. I hope I may carry to the grave . . . When I came out here. I thought I was to have been Commander-in-Chief. But I was mistaken. Yes, egregiously mistaken, I fou'nd that I was merely a sort of monster adjutant. Not • even a monster adjutant complete, but, like a half-caste neither one thing nor the other."

Sir Charles Napier- had reason to be thankful that the year was 1851. Just half a century later, another speechmaking general, Sir Keel vers Buller, was removed from liis command for deliver- . . himself of much less trenchant criticisms of the Powers-tliat-Were. Other times, other (military) methods.