A sergeant of the 60th Rifles at Ginghilovo in South Africa,

House Of Lords.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 88.]

Mr. PARNELL , in moving, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 7, after the word "suicide," to insert the words "while not undergoing a sentence of imprisonment," asked whether it would not be better to omit the 2nd sub-section from the clause? He thought that men convicted of breaches of military discipline should not be treated in the same way as felons and persons convicted of ordinary crimes, and he hoped that some guarantee would be taken under the Bill in order to secure this desirable result. They had a case the other day in which a sergeant of the 60th Rifles at Ginghilovo in South Africa, who merely committed an error of judgment in retiring a picket, had imposed upon him a sentence of five years' penal servitude. Common prison discipline in this country was neither more nor less than slavery; and he protested against the proposal to sentence a man already incarcerated to an additional term of imprisonment because, feeling that slavery, he attempted to commit suicide. There ought clearly to be some distinction between 572 the treatment of military prisoners—men who were simply convicted of breach of discipline—and the treatment of men convicted of criminal offences in the ordinary sense. There should, in his opinion, be separate prisons, separate rules, and a separate system of treatment altogether. It was manifestly highly unjust and improper that men who were found guilty and convicted of simple breaches of discipline should be compelled to herd with ordinary criminals. He earnestly desired to press this matter upon the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; and he hoped it would be carefully considered whether powers might not be given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to frame rules for the regulation and management of military prisons not only in England, but in other parts of the world. He simply moved his Amendment in order to put himself in Order. He did not intend to take a division upon the matter at present; but at a later stage of the measure he should be prepared, if necessary, to make a proposal embodying the views which he had indicated.

COLONEL MURE was inclined to think the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had very far stretched a point in assuming that the usual treatment of convicts induced suicide, and that the same thing could be said of the treatment of military prisoners. It was another assumption, also, that in the case of the sergeant at Ginghilovo the man only committed an error of judgment. As yet, they had no evidence on that subject at all; but his (Colonel Mure's) impression was the other way, and he did not believe for a moment that a man would have been sentenced to five years' penal servitude for that alone.

COLONEL STANLEY said, with regard to the case of the sergeant referred to, he had only seen what had appeared in the public Press. He had not yet received any of the Papers, and, therefore, as he had already stated, he was utterly unable to form any opinion. It was also a pure assumption that because a noncommissioned officer was sent to penal servitude he would be likely to commit suicide. He was, however, quite ready to admit the contention of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that 573 they must consider very carefully the circumstances under which military prisoners were confined in State gaols; and although he was not able in all cases to make separate rules for different classes of offenders, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman was one which had engaged, and would still receive, his own attention and the attention of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with a view to its amendment to a certain extent.

MR. E. JENKINS asked why, if the existing law were sufficiently strong to lay hold of offenders, and offences were defined in the Common Law, it should be necessary to make an attempt to commit suicide what might be termed a military offence? It could be well dealt with by the ordinary Criminal Courts. They had a punishment for the offence under the ordinary law, and why should not the offender be handed over to the civil power for trial? The certificate of the sentence would be enough to enable the military power to deal with the offender. He was not going to discuss the Ginghilovo affair either; but the time would come when the Government would have to answer for the strangeness of the fact that the offence of the General who lost an Army at Isandlana should be disregarded, while a sergeant—[Colonel STANLEY: I rise to Order]—was sentenced to penal servitude for retiring a picket.

I think Jenkins makes a Good Point about the General who lost an Army..... Talk about level playing fields.

Here's the whole story, a bit to long winded to post all of it.

Anyone know the Sgt: Name...?

Hi All.
Here is the incident in question from ' In Zululand With The British Throughout The War Of 1879 ' by Charles L. Norris - Newman.

'' On Friday , April 4th , Col Pearson's Column started , with 116 wagons , on their return to the Tugela . Their route was by the same
road as on the march out , and they arrived safely at Fort Tenedos early on the ensuing Monday morning , the journey not having
been marked by any special incident worthy of record . On the morning of their departure from Etshowi the General sent off a detatchment of his flying column - consisting of John Dunn's Scouts , Captain Beddoe's Native Pioneers and the mounted men - on
an expedition to Dabulamanzi's Kraal a few miles away , which was successfully destroyed . The Flying column in its turn , evacuated
etshowi on the same day and rejoined the rest of the relief column at the laager of Gingihlovo . Thence a transfer was made to a new
entrenched permanent station called Ft Chelmsford , at a site near the Inyezane , in which position a portion of the force was left in garrison , consisting of the 57th , 60th and 91st Regt's , with one Batt NNC, the mounted Infantry and the Naval Bgde. The rest of
the relief column returned subsequently with the General to Ft. Pearson for farther service in the campaign agains Ulundi. Their
homeward march was only marked by one noteworthy , though painful incident , arising out of one of those unaccountable scares
from night alarms. About 3.30 am ; a piquet of the 60th fired a shot at some imaginary foe , and Dunn's scouts , who were in front
, took fright and rushed back , carrying with them the entire piquet of the 60th , in a complete state of disorganisation and running
over their own officers . The trench guard , also of the 60th , under the impression the zulus were attacking , fired among the fugitives , killing and wounding five of the 60th and eight of Dunn's scouts . The whole affair was inexplicable and disgraceful . The
Colour - Sgt of the 60th , in charge of the piquet , was immediately tried by Drumhead Court- Martial and sentenced to five years
penal servitude and to be degraded to the ranks '' .

John
He is not mentioned by name anywhere as far as I'm aware , but the following are the names of the Colour - Sgts in the 3 / 60th
from the Medal Roll . As he was reduced in rank he may not even be named as a colour - sgt .

2378 Brown. T , 3077 Burke . J.W , 2315 Dallon. E , 3030 Dickety . J , 1584 Foster . J , 2349 Overton . E , 2451 Palmer . T ,
3044 Shipman . A . All entitled to the Medal and 1879 Clasp .
I can tell you on further reading of the roll ............ Private . T. Farley 3548 says Medal Forfeited C.M Prisoner and another
Private Kennedy . T.V.P . 949 No Medal . C.M Prisoner in England . One of these two might be that Sgt ??????.

cheers 90th .

COLONEL MURE was inclined to think the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had very far stretched a point in assuming that the usual treatment of convicts induced suicide, and that the same thing could be said of the treatment of military prisoners. It was another assumption, also, that in the case of the sergeant at Ginghilovo the man only committed an error of judgment. As yet, they had no evidence on that subject at all; but his (Colonel Mure's) impression was the other way, and he did not believe for a moment that a man would have been sentenced to five years' penal servitude for that alone.

I find myself agreeing .

Hi All.
Following on from my post in Norris- Newman's book . This from Ian Knights ' Fearful Hard Times - The Siege and Relief
Of Eshowe , 1879 '

'' Chelmsford was furious . '' It was bright moonlight '' , he wrote in his report , '' and I can offer no excuse or explanation of what
occurred , beyond the youth of the men of the 60th , for it was perfectly well known to officers and men that these scouts were in front '' . The next afternoon , when the column had reached the Laager at Gingindlovu , a general court - martial was convened
and a Sgt of the 60th who had been with the Piquets was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks , and to five yrs penal servitude.
Curiously , the proceedings were subsequently quashed . Molyneux mused ;.
cheers 90th

Here is an update on the Colour-Sergeant.

From ‘The Belfast Morning News’ Friday 27 June, 1879 reporting on the arrival of the Hired Transport “Andean” at Portsmouth:

“An order has been received for Colour-Sergeant Dickarty, 60th Rifles, to be released from arrest when he arrives, and to be sent to the depot with the same rank as before. Dickarty was sentenced to be shot for retreating without orders during a false alarm on the return from Ekowe, and the sentence was reduced to five years’ penal servitude.”


Petty Officer Tom

Thanks Tom. Was the five year sentence carried out.?

Good Topic SAS 1 : It's a shame, discipline is still inhuman in this time ...

CTSG,

The article I quoted from has the Colour-Sergeant’s name spelled incorrectly. His name was “Dickaty”; not “Dickarty.”

He is on the medal roll for the 60th as Colour Sergeant J. Dickaty #3030, and was entitled to the clasp “1879”.

Regarding the 5 years penal servitude – The Colour Sergeant did not have to serve them.

This from the House of Commons:
HC Deb 18 July 1879 vol 248 cc755-6

MR. PRICE
I beg to ask the Judge Advocate General, with reference to the trial of Colour Sergeant Dickaty, of the 60th Rifles, under the 52nd Article of War, for shamefully abandoning his post, Whether the sentence of reduction to the ranks and five years' penal servitude which was passed upon him has been merely remitted, or whether the proceedings of the court martial have been quashed or set aside; whether the offence under which the prisoner was arraigned, and the sentence passed upon him, will be recorded against him in the regimental defaulter's book; whether it is to be understood that the prisoner is considered to be morally as well as legally innocent of the charge preferred against him; and, whether it is not really the fact that Colour Sergeant Dickaty behaved well under difficult circumstances?

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
Sir, with reference to the first two parts of the Question, I have already explained to the hon. Member the action I have taken in this matter. The consequence is that the proceedings of the court martial are altogether set aside, and no record of the conviction will remain in the regimental defaulters' book, and thus the prisoner is in the same position as if he had never been tried. With reference to the last two parts, I yesterday informed the hon. Member that the evidence adduced at the trial did not appear to me to warrant the conviction; and I think that, according to official and Parliamentary usages, I cannot be called upon to give him any further opinion. The proceedings of the court martial are now in my custody, and are open to the inspection of the hon. Member, or of any other hon. Member of the House.

Hope this answers your question.


Petty Officer Tom

Quote :

Regarding the 5 years penal servitude – The Colour Sergeant did not have to serve them.

I was kind of hoping you would say that.

Hi CTSG .
My post in 2011 , the one before POT'S first post also states the charges were quashed . . Which I also think was a
good result for all concerned . As it was LC who decided the verdict at the C - M .
90th.

Thanks for the up-date Tom!

Bravo,All's well that ends well !

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]