QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 18 July 1890)

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India what measures the Indian Government has taken to improve the discipline of the regiments recently quartered at Dum Dum; and what compensation it has made to the widow of the man shot by one of four soldiers who went out of barracks without leave on the night of the 6th November last; also to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will take steps to provide temperance canteens for all barracks and European military quarters in India as accessible to the soldiers as the canteens for intoxicating liquors, said:—My Lords, the effects of discipline at the Dum Dum barracks to which I have called the attention of the Secretary of State for India consist, in the first place, in the existence of too great facilities for the soldiers getting out of barracks at all hours of the night; and, secondly, for obtaining ball cartridge and regimental rifles when off duty. Taking advantage of this culpable laxity three soldiers of the Leinster Regiment, named O'Hara, Bellew, and M'Dermot, and a soldier of the Buffs, named Goldsborough, agreed to go out on, the night of November 6 last pig shooting. They left the barracks about 11 o'clock p.m. with two rifles and 10 or 11 rounds of ball cartridge, as stated by one of the witnesses, and the number of empty and unused cartridges picked up in their tracks amounted to that number. These cartridges were obtained by the soldiers of the Leinster Regiment. They were able to leave the barracks unobserved. It appears there were only two sentries—one at the Guard Room and the other at the Quarter-Master's stores, and the Dum Dum barracks are not surrounded by any 190 enclosure or spiked railing. It has also been stated there was inefficiency or irregularity in the matter of roll calls and check rolls at Dum Dum. These statements have been contradicted in the Press, but if the statements are well founded they will prove that further precautions are necessary for the maintenance of discipline. The four soldiers having left barracks proceeded to a village near Dum Dum. They visited two or three houses or huts, knocked up the inmates, and forced them to give them toddy. They then broke into a dispensary and stole a bottle of Eno's fruit salt, but unfortunately they did not drink it at a time when it might have sobered them, and thus prevented the crime which was afterwards committed. They then came to the house of one Sheikh Salim, and found him asleep in his verandah. O'Hara, as was stated at the trial, dragged Salim out by the arm, took him away to a pond near his house, pushed him in, and then knelt down and deliberately fired at him. The man threw up his arms and screamed, and the four soldiers then left him. The wounded man was, however, taken home, but he died before dawn. The bullet, it was found, went in at his right collarbone and came out at his left side, and passed through his left arm. The four soldiers then amused themselves by firing shots at bottles or jugs suspended from a tree, and then returned to barracks, one on foot and the other three in a country cart, in which they had compelled a man to give them a lift. The authors of this crime remained undiscovered for a month. Then the Magistrate promised a pardon to anyone concerned in the crime, who was not the actual murderer, who would give evidence, and Goldsborough and M'Dermot then gave information against O'Hara and Bellew. On April 14 O'Hara and Bellew were put on their trial before Mr. Justice Norris. Bellew was in the course of the trial discharged, and O'Hara was found guilty and sentenced to death. The High Court of Calcutta was, however, set in motion to inquire into the sentence, with the result that the conviction was quashed, on the ground that Goldsborough, the witness, was also an accomplice, and that parts of his evidence 191 were of no avail—not having been corroborated. O'Hara was discharged from the Army, and accordingly went away scot-free. This was unfortunate, because the day before O'Hara was tried another man, a shopkeeper, was tried by the same Judge, Mr. Justice Norris, for having killed a doorkeeper in Calcutta, who had given him. no offence, by running him through the lungs with the sword of a sword-stick, and he died almost immediately. For this unprovoked murder he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Now, I think, my Lords, it is for the Secretary of State for India to consider what effect this disregard for their lives must have upon the natives of India. Nor are these the only cases which have occurred recently? There have been two or three other cases of natives of India in the North-West who have been injured by soldiers with almost equal impunity. It may also be asked why these four soldiers were not put on their trial by Court Martial for the military offence of breaking barracks and appropriating Government ammunition. This was purely a military offence and had nothing to do with the murder, so that the maxim non bis in idem would not apply in that case. It has also been stated that the decision of the High Court of Calcutta was not altogether correct with regard to the evidence of the man Goldsborough, because the witness was not necessarily an accomplice, since they all went out on the spree, not with the object of committing murder. Of course, if they had gone out on an expedition to commit burglary then he would have been an accomplice in the crime which afterwards occurred, because burglary necessarily may lead to murder. I will now come to the question which I have put on the Notice Paper with regard to what compensation is intended to be made to the widow and child of Sheikh Salim, whose death was caused by these soldiers and who had been begging since his murder. This marauding expedition in search of toddy was not the first subject of complaint against soldiers of the Leinster Regiment. The jury who tried O'Hara made a subscription among themselves for the relief of the widow, and Mr. Justice Norris commented very severely upon the fact of Sheikh Salim's widow and child having been left 192 without any means of support. One reason, in fact, why the Judge did not inflict a heavier sentence on the man who had run the other native through with his sword-stick was because the firm who employed him had made some compensation to the widow. I now come to the last question on the Notice Paper, and I hope My noble Friend the Secretary of State will be able to state that he has come to some decision upon the question of promoting temperance in the Army of India by establishing temperance canteens in places as accessible to the soldiers as the other canteens. The tragedy at Dum Dum has emphasised the necessity of such a reform. This marauding expedition was hatched in the canteen. Mischief constantly occurs from the soldiers going to the canteens and quarrelling with one another when they begin drinking. On grounds of economy alone the Indian Administration is bound to provide temperance canteens, and to do its utmost to check the drinking of spirits—for the purpose of diminishing the number of soldiers who from that cause primarily have to be invalided home. I believe Sir Frederick Roberts has made some reforms of that kind with regard to the Madras Army, and if that is the case, I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say what he has done in the matter. The noble Viscount will remember that two years ago a plan was published of an Indian Camp comprising a temperance canteen; but I think that must have been a private missionary canteen, for it was relegated to the further end of the camp, while its alcoholic competitor was in the centre. Spirit drinking in the tropics ought to be discouraged in every way possible, and Government ought to provide means for enabling soldiers to be more careful of their health. Not only is it necessary in the tropics; Lord Wolseley said that in his Red River Expedition the soldiers had no spirits, but, though they were constantly wet and had to endure great fatigue, there was no sickness amongst them, and no discontent. This question of temperance canteens has a direct bearing on the murders I have described; but I do not wish to withdraw the attention 'of the Secretary of State from the want of discipline manifested in the circumstances attending the fatal case of this man who was 193 shot by these soldiers. I will make a formal Motion for Papers, because it would be of no use bringing the matter forward if my noble Friend is unwilling to grant them; and I will ask him, therefore, as soon as he receives any reply from the Indian Government, to lay it on the Table of the House.