SEVERE CENSURE OF A BRITISH OFFICER.

Western Star, Issue 1077, 30 October 1886, Page 3

SEVERE CENSURE OF A BRITISH OFFICER.

A great deal of interest was excited some time ago by sensational reports from Burmah that a prominent British officer had been guilty of unseemly conduct, such as photographing condemned criminals on point of execution, extorting confessions from others under the threat of death, and otherwise behaving with something like barbarity. Very conflicting statements —accusations and denials—were published at the time as to the officer’s conduct, and the case has since been thoroughly investigated by a Courtmartial at Mandalay. Tbo latest issue of the ‘ Times of India ’ to hand contains the result of the inquiry in an order of the Governor-General-in-Council, in which it is stated: “ The Governor-General-in-Council is satisfied, from a review of the evidence before the Court, that the charges have been established. As regards the first charge, the Governor-General in Council must express his astonishment that a staff-officer of the British Army should have so far forgotten his responsibilities and duties devolving on him as to attend a military execution for the purpose of photographing prisoners when on the point of death. Such conduct was not only indecorous and unfeeling, but in opposition to the spirit of military regulations, which detail the procedure on such solemn occasions. The Governor in Council cannot accept Colonel Hooper’s plea in extenuation that he attended the execution privately in plain clothes, and not in bis official capacity as Provost Marshal. It is impossible for a Provost Marshal to divest himself of the duties of his office wheu present at au execution for which he was responsible ; and, moreover, this plea is nullified by the fact that Colonel Hooper gave a caution to the officer commanding the firing party to make a proper pause between the words ‘ present ’ and * fire.’ The second charge, of endeavouring to make an untried prisoner confess under threat of death, Is, in the opinion of the Governor-General-in-Council, of a graver nature than the first. Colonel Hooper’s action in the case is without justification, and his explanation ia wholly inadequate. The conduct of Colonel Hooper in both instances has deservedly met with public condemnation. it reflects discredit on the army to which he belongs, and is damaging to the character of the British administration in India.” The order adds that dismissal of the officer would have been justified ; but, having regard to his previous blameless and his specially acknowlod services in the Burmah campaign, it is thought that a public reprimand will meet the case.