§ MR. AGG-GARDNER, who had a Notice upon the Paper, to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Torckler, late of the Bengal Native Infantry, said, that gentleman had served with distinction in the regiment to which he had been appointed as interpreter and quartermaster. But, in the first instance, his appointment caused some dissatisfaction, and, unfortunately, that feeling afterwards increased. This gentleman was placed under arrest on the charge of having attempted to murder a brother officer in India, and was tried by court-martial, by which he was found guilty, and sentenced to death. Attempts to obtain the production of Papers bearing on the case were for a long time unsuccessful; but when they were produced it was found that the proceedings of the court-martial against him were so absurd that a Royal pardon was given to him, but he was not reinstated in the position he held when he joined his regiment. This gentleman had been left in a very painful uncertainty during a long series of years, and he suffered not from any fault of his own, but from the carelessness of Government officials. The case was one which seemed to him to demand inquiry.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was desirous to say something upon this case, as he had looked into the Papers bearing upon it. He had hoped that the case would have been settled without coming before the House of Commons, and he regretted that the Indian Government had not endeavoured to put an end to the representations that had been made in reference to this subject for so many years. In his opinion 1741 some favourable consideration should be shown to this unfortunate man, and some allowance ought to be made for the great irritation under which he was suffering when he committed the offence, for which he was tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be hanged. The court-martial that convicted and sentenced him had been conducted in the most illegal manner, a strong personal rancour being displayed during the course of the proceedings; and the Commander-in-Chief having interfered, the man was pardoned, but was dismissed the Service, and obtained the grant of a very small pension. Since 1831 this unfortunate person had been endeavouring to clear his character, and had never ceased to appeal to the authorities for redress. It was only in 1863 that the Papers relating to the case had been brought to light, and then it appeared that the letter of the Commander-in-Chief in India, in his favour had never been sent home or reached the proper authorities. A great wrong had undoubtedly been committed in the case, for which redress ought to be given, and he (Sir George Balfour) hoped it would be given.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he could not promise his hon. Friend who had introduced the Motion that the case of Lieutenant Torckler would be re-considered. He was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir George Balfour) advocate the case, because that hon. and gallant Baronet had had considerable experience in military affairs, and was therefore aware of the great necessity of maintaining discipline in the Army. Now, what were the facts of the case. Lieutenant Torckler was an officer who, after a few years' service, had been appointed to a regiment with the officers of which he could not get on very well. Disputes arose, and possibly he had suffered under considerable provocation. But what did he do? He would state what he did from his own account of it. Wishing to obtain a signature to a document, he proceeded to the quarters of a brother officer, and, not having sufficient confidence in his own powers of persuasion, he took with him two pistols, and some altercation ensuing he discharged them at the person of the officer in question. For this offence he was placed under arrest, and he was tried by court-martial for having 1742 unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously fired one or two loaded pistols at Lieutenant Philip Goldney, with intent to murder. The court-martial condemned him, and he was sentenced to be hanged. The proceedings were, in due course, forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Dalhousie, who approved the sentence. There could, however, be no doubt that the court-martial had been conducted with great irregularity; and, having taken the opinion of the best authorities on the subject, the Commander-in-Chief remitted the sentence, but he ordered Lieutenant Torckler to proceed to Calcutta. It afterwards came to the notice of Lord Dalhousie that the proceedings of the court-martial had been informal, and he got the best legal opinion in India as to whether he had power to remit the sentence; but as there seemed to be some confusion upon that point, he wrote home upon the matter. It was suggested that Lieutenant Torckler should be discharged from the Army, and the Court of Directors of the East India Company acted upon this, but he had' from that time until now been in the receipt of a pension of £70 per annum. Under these circumstances, could it be contended that the case of an officer who discharged loaded pistols at a brother officer—who was adjudged an unfit person to remain in Her Majesty's Service, but who had been granted a pension, ought to be further considered? For his part, he could not but think that Lieutenant Torckler—notwithstanding that it was true that the prosecutor at the court-martial exhibited great animus against him, and that some of the charges preferred were not proven—had been treated with very great consideration. Having looked very carefully through the Papers on the subject at the India Office, it did not seem to him that the case required to be further considered by the Secretary of State.