মণিপুরের সেনাপতি (শেষ অংশ)/পঞ্চবিংশ পরিচ্ছেদ

প্রিয়নাথ মুখোপাধ্যায়

মণিপুরের সেনাপতি

১৯০৪ (পৃ. ১০৯-১১১)

◄ চতুর্ব্বিংশ পরিচ্ছেদ

পঞ্চবিংশ পরিচ্ছেদ

ষড়বিংশ পরিচ্ছেদ ►

মণিপুরের সেনাপতিপঞ্চবিংশ পরিচ্ছেদ১০৯-১১১

পঞ্চবিংশ পরিচ্ছেদ।

টিকেন্দ্রের ধৃত হওন ও বিচার।

সেনাপতি টিকেন্দ্রজিৎ ও কুলচন্দ্র প্রভৃতি যাহারা রাজধানী পরিত্যাগ-পূর্ব্বক পলায়ন করিয়াছেন, তাহাদিগকে ধরিবার নিমিত্ত ইংরাজরাজ যে কত চেষ্টা করিলেন, তাহা বলা যায় না। পরিশেষে কিন্তু যখন কোন ফলই ফলিল না, তখন উপযুক্ত পারিতােষিকের প্রলােভন প্রদর্শিত হইল। ইহার কয়েক দিবস পরেই কুলচন্দ্র ধৃত হইলেন; কিন্তু কেহই টিকেন্দ্রের কোন সংবাদ সংগ্রহ করিতে সমর্থ হইলেন না। পাঠকগণ শুনিয়া বিস্মিত হইবেন যে, টিকেন্দ্রকে ধরিবার নিমিত্ত যখন এত আয়োজন ও এত চেষ্টা হইতেছে, ইহা জানিয়াও, টিকেন্দ্র তখন রাজধানীর দূরবর্তী স্থানে গমন করেন নাই। নিকটবর্ত্তী সামান্য পল্লীর ভিতর অবস্থিতি-পূর্ব্বক রাজধানীতে কি হইতেছে না হইতেছে, তাহার সংবাদ প্রত্যহই সংগ্রহ করিতে লাগিলেন।

টিকেন্দ্রজিৎ যে স্থানে লুক্কাইত ছিলেন, ২৪শে তারিখে তাহা সরমাভেলির সুবেদার কুলেন্দ্র সিংহ ও গারো-হিল পুলিশের সিপাহী আনুসিংহ জানিতে পারিয়া, ইংরাজ-পলটনে সংবাদ প্রের পের পূর্ব্বেই টিকেন্দ্র সিংহ জানিতে পারেন। এই সংবাদ টিকেন্দ্রজিৎ যেমন অবগত হইলেন, অমনি একাকী বিনা সহায়ে ও বিনা অস্ত্রে সেই স্থান পরিত্যাগ করিলেন। কুলেন্দ্র সিংহ ও আনুসিংহ সেই সময় সেই স্থানেই ছিলেন। তাঁহারা পলটনের সাহায্য পাইবার প্রত্যাশা না করিয়াই, আপনাদিগের সাহসের উপর নিভর-পূর্ব্বক টিকেন্দ্রকে ধরিবার নিমিত্ত অগ্রসর হইলেন; এবং হঠাৎ পশ্চাৎ হইতে গমন-পূর্ব্বক তাঁহাকে ধরিয়া ফেলিলেন। টিকেন্দ্র পলাইবার নিমিত্ত বিশেষ চেষ্টা আর করিলেন না। তবে ধরিবার সময় ধৃতকারিদ্বয় ও টিকেন্দ্রের সহিত একটু সামান্ত ধস্তা-ধস্তী মাত্র হইয়াছিল; এবং তিনজনেই জড়াজড়ি করিয়া সেই স্থানেই মৃত্তিকার উপর পতিত হইয়াছিলেন। পরিবার সময় টিকেন্দ্র যদি আপনার প্রকৃত বল প্রকাশ করিতেন, তাহা হইলে তাহাকে ধৃত করা নিতান্ত সহজ হইত না। কিন্তু, কি জানি কি ভাবিয়া, টিকে বিশেষ বল প্রকাশ না করিয়াই আত্মসমর্পণ করিলেন।

টিকেন্দ্রজিৎ ২৫শে জুন তারিখে ধৃত হইলেন। তাঁহার ধৃত সংবাদ শ্রবণে সেই স্থানের ইংরাজ ও ইংরাজ-কর্ম্মচারিগণের মধ্যে মহা আনন্দ-স্রোত প্রবাহিত হইল। টিকেন্দ্র বন্দীভাবে কারাগারে প্রেরিত হইলেন; তাঁহার বিচারের দিন স্থির হইল।

১ জুন তারিখে টিকেন্দ্রের বিচার আরম্ভ হইল। লেপ্টেনাণ্ট কর্ণেল জন ফারকোট মিচেল, মেজর আর, কে, রিগওয়ে এবং: নাগা-হিলের ডেপুটী কমিসনর এ, ডলিউ, ডেভিস এই তিনজন কর্মচারির হস্তে তাঁহার বিচারভার অর্পিত হইল। এক এক করিয়া অনেক সাক্ষ্যের সাক্ষ্য গৃহীত হইতে লাগিল, ও এইরূপে ক্রমান্বয়ে ১৩ দিবস বিচারের পর মহারাণীর বিপক্ষে যুদ্ধ-ঘোষণা করা এবং ইংরাজ কর্ম্মচারিগণের হত্যায় সহায়তা করা প্রভৃতি অপরাধে তাহার দোষ সাব্যস্ত হইল। তিনি আইনের চরমদও দণ্ডিত হইবার আজ্ঞা প্রাপ্ত হইলেন।^[১] যে পর্য্যন্ত তাঁহার

জীবনবায়ু বহির্গত না হয়, সেই পর্য্যন্ত তাহার গলায় রজ্জু বাঁধিয়া ঝুলাইয়া রাখিবার আজ্ঞা ১৩ই জুন তারিখে প্রদত্ত হইল, ও সেই দণ্ডাজ্ঞা স্থির রাখিবার জন্য সমস্ত কাগজপত্র মহামান্য গবর্ণর জেনারেল ল্যাডাউন সাহেবের নিকট প্রেরিত হইল।

টিকেন্দ্রজিৎ প্রাণের আশা পরিত্যাগপূর্ব্বক একবার শেষ উপায় অবলম্বন করিলেন। প্রাণভিক্ষা চাহিয়া গবর্নর জেনারেল সাহেবের নিকট এক আবেদন করিলেন, এবং তাহার পক্ষ হইতে তাহার দুঃখকাহিনী বলিবার নিমিত্ত কৌন্সলী শ্রীযুক্ত মনোমোহন ঘোষকে নিযুক্ত করিলেন। প্রথমে গবর্নর জেনারেল সাহেব ১০ই জুলাই পর্য্যন্ত তাহার আবেদনের দিন স্থির করিয়া দেন, কিন্তু মনোমোহন বাবু বিশেষরূপে ওজর-আপত্তি প্রদর্শন করায়, পরিশেষে সেই দিন ৩১শে জুলাই স্থির হয়। কিন্তু গবর্নর জেনারেল বাহাদুর নিজে বক্তৃতা শুনিতে অসম্মত হয়েন, এবং তাহার যাহা কিছু বলিবার আছে, তাহা লিখিয়া জানাইতে অনুমতি দেন।

এই অনুমতি-প্রাপ্তে মনোমোহন ও লালমোহন দুই ভাই বিশেষ যত্ন ও পরিশ্রম-পূর্ব্বক একখানি সুদীর্ঘ আবেদন-পত্র প্রস্তুত করেন, এবং এই সম্বন্ধীয় বিষয়ে তিনি যাহা কিছু বলিতে ইচ্ছা করিয়াছিলেন, তাহার সমস্তই ইহার ভিতর সন্নিবেশিত করেন। ঐ আবেদনপত্র ৩১শে জুলাই তারিখে শ্রীযুক্ত বড়লাট বাহাদুরের সমীপে প্রেরিত হয়।

এদিকে মণিপুর-সম্বন্ধীয় বিষয় লইয়া, টীকেন্দ্রকে দরবারে ধরিবার ষড়যন্ত্র করিবার উপায় করা প্রভৃতি নানা বিষয় লইয়া, বিলাতে হুলস্থূল পড়িয়া যায়। কেহ বা টিকেন্দ্রের পক্ষ, কেহ বা তাঁহার বিপক্ষ-পক্ষ অবলম্বন-পূর্ব্বক পার্লিয়ামেণ্টে নানারূপ সুদীর্ঘ বক্তৃতা করেন। সেই সকল বিষয় আনুপূর্বিক বর্ণন করিতে হইলে, এই পুস্তকের কলেবর নিতান্ত দীর্ঘ হইয়া পড়ে বলিয়া তাহা পরিত্যক্ত হইল।

↑

THE TRIAL OF THE SENAPATI.

THE JUDGMENT.

FIRST COUNT OF THE CHARGE.

The accused pleads not guilty to the first court of the charge against him, viz., waging war againsä the Queen-Empress, and though he admits having fired upon the British troops sent to arrest him, he states that he did so more in self-defence than with any idea of waging war against the Queen.
That it was the intention of the Manipuri Durbar to resist forcibly any order of the Government of India, which was not in accordance with their wishes. We have the evidence of Bamon Charan Mukerji, clerk to the Regent, who states that preparation for resistance and attack was made a fortnight before the arrival of the Chief Commissioner.
The Manipnri Durbar had heard that the late Maharaja of Manipur, who had abdicated, was on the road from Kohima to Manipur, in company with the Chief Commissioner of Assam, and the accused does not deny that warlike preparations were made to resist. The accused was President of the Council, when it was decided to send 1,000 Manipuri solders to Mao Thana to oppose the advance. It was only on receipt of a telegraphic message, stating that the ex-Maharaja was not in company with the Chief Commissioner, that this most daring attempt to oppose the Government of India's orders, was abandoned.

We may take the events which occurred from the 21st March, when the Chief Commissioner arrived at Sengmai; up to the night of the 23rd Mareh, as related by the witnesses, and the accu. sed himself, as they agree, except on the points (1) of an interview with Mr. Grimwood; (2) the illness of the accused, and (3) his presence at the (Regent's) Durbar.

The plea of sudden illness, through which the accused was unable to attend any Durbar on the 22nd and 23rd, cannot be accepted as valid. Every thing tends to prove that it was a mere preference to avoid a meeting with the Chief Commissioner, The accused was able to meet the Chief Commissioner some miles out of Manipur; he was able to attend the Durbar at noon on the same day on horse-back; and it was only after he had been kept waiting outside the Residency-gate some little time that he returned to his house.
His suspicions had been aroused that he was about to be arrested. We have it in evidence that a rumour had been current for some time in Manipur that the accused's arrest was contemplated by the Chief Commissioner, and there is further evidence to show that the accused was well enough to attend the Regent's Durbar, on the afternoon of the 23rd, and to take an active part in the attack of the 24th. Babu Bamon Charan Mukerji, second witness, states that the accused was present at the Regent's Durbar on the afternoon of the 23rd March, held in the palace, to discuss the orders of Government. The accused states, he was not there. The second witness, Babu Bamon Charan, has given his evidence throughout in a most starightforward manner, and appears to have a good memory of the smallest details which happened, and his evidence on this point may be accepted. We come then to the morning of the 24th March.

It is proved by all the witnesses for the prosecution, and admitted by the accused and the witnesses for the defence, that firing between the Manipuris and British soldiers commenced early on the morning of the 24th, and continued uninterruptedly all day, until about eight o'clock in the evening. The accused pleads in extenuation that his troops were fired on first.

Of his own witnesses, only one, the third asserts that the British fired first, and this witness was, by his own admission, not in a position to make any such assertion, as he states he was awakened by the sound of firing and immediately ran away; whereas on the other hand, we have the evidence of Captain Butcher, Lieutenant Chatterton and Havildar Dhup Chand, that the British troops did not open fire first, and both officers testify to the strict orders given to officers commanding parties that our 'troops were not to fire unless fired on first. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that the first fire came from the Manipur side. The accused is proved by the evidence to have taken an active part in the attack on the Residency on the 24th, He was found at an early hour in the morning, superintending the men at the north west corner of the ramparts, from which the Manipuris were firing on his own house, then occupied by the British troops. He was found in the evening superintending the laying of a gun, and the construction of an embrasure at the west wall and he admits being in command and ordering the “cease fires on the evening of the 24th. It is impossible to doubt that he could, had he so wished, have stopped the fire of his troops on the British at any moment, and hoisted a flag of truce. Finally, he demanded the surrender of the British troops on the night of the 24th.

The court are unanimous in the opinion that the first count of the charge has been proved against the accused.

TRIAL OF THE GUARD

This morning nine men who composed the guard placed over Mr. Quinton's party by the Jubraj, and to whom he gave orders to take care of the Sahibs, were put on their trial before Maxwell, Chief Political officer.

ANGAO MINGTO'S STATEMENT.

The first witness for the prosecution was Angao Mingto, whose evidence was much the same as that given in the previous trials. He acknowledged receiving orders from the Jubraj to see the Sahibs safely out, and stated that he gave directions to the prisoners to watch over the officers and see that no harm befell them. After this, witness went away to eat his food, and did not hear of the murder of the Sahibs until his return.

JUTTRA SING'S STATEMENT.

The next witness was Juttra Singh, who gave w similar evidence, and acknowledged that Angao Mingto had handed over the captured Europeans to his care. But notwithstanding this, witness stated that when the Jubraj and Tongal bad a con- versation in the Tope-guard regarding the killing of the officers, he, witness, seeing that something dreadful was to happen, went away to his quarters tu sleep and did not hear of the murder of the officers until next morning. This witness alsa stated that he never saw Mr. Grimwood's body near the steps, nor did he know how he was killed.

USURBA'S DEFENCE.

The statement in defence of Usurba, the first prisoner, contained no new facts, except a confession that he knew that the Sahibs were to be killed at the time when he made them over to the executioners, He acknowledged doing this by order of the Tongal, although on a previous occasion he had refused to obey the order given by the Tongal to kill the Sahibs, Witness gave as a reason for obeying this second order that he knew that the Tongal was closeted with the Jubraj, and hence that the order met with the Jubraj's approval.

SECOND COUNT.

It is admitted that the British officers met the accused at a Durbar inside the Fort on the night of the 24th March. The accused states that after expressions of regret on both sides as to the event which had occured during the day, he required the British troops to lay down their arms, and on this condition alone, would he give them a safe conduct to kohima, and he mentioned that the Manipuri troops were so infuriated as to be quite beyond his control.

On the refusal of the Chief Commissioner to accede to the terms, the Durbar broke up'; the accused left the Durbar and proceeded in the direction of the Tope Guard, leaving the British officers to make their way out as best they could, in the opposed direction. This action, so contrary to the strict Oriental ideas of etiquette, and quite opposite to the usual custom in Manipur, was very expressive of anger against, and contempt for the British representative.

The crowd, already excited, and encouraged no doubt by this attitude of their Prince, at once broke out into demonstrations of violence against the officers, stirking at them with spears, the butts of their rifles and swords, and shouting out “kill, kill,” One of the officers was wounded, and it was only owing to the exertions of Angao Mingto that the officers were enabled to gain the shelter of rhe Durbar Hall steps. One of them, Mr. Grimwood was stabbed just as he entered the gate of the compound fell under the steps, and died there. The accused, hearing the uproar, returned and drove off the crowd, apparently without any great difficulty. This affords strong proof of the great control he possessed over his men. He then ordered Angao Mingto to guard the officers safely, and went away, making no fur. ther efforts for their safety, although he had seen the dead body of Mr. Grimwood for whom he claims to have entertained strong personal friendship, lying under the steps, and must have known in what imminent danger the lives of the remainder were.

He made no effort to see the officers safe to their camp. He says, he did not do this owing to the heavy firing going on at the time; but we have conclusive evidence to prove that firing did not recommence until midnight and the Dur- bar has been proved to have been held at about nine o'clock. The accused himself, further on, states that when he was met on the wall by Jattra Sing and Usurba, there was no firing going on, and these witnesses sought him on the wall shortly after he left the Durbar-room. This excuse may, therefore, be dismissed as untrue.

It is evident that the accused could not have been doubtful of his power to conduct the efficers outside the gates, had he wished to do so, for his own men had just given him an excellent proof of their obedience and of the influence he possesed over them. Even had the above excuses been valid, there was nothing to prevent his taking the officers either to the Tope Guard or to the citadel, where they would have been in perfect safety.
He merely told Angao Mingto to guard them and went off to the ramparts to look after the troops, proving thereby that if he had not then desired to kill the officers, he intended to keep them prisoners, for some ends of his own. While the accused was on the ramparts, Juttra Singh and Usurba reported to him that the Tongal General had given orders for the officers to be killed, but they wanted his, the accused's orders. There is some discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses. Juttra Singh says, the accused merely said: 'Let us go and consult the old man, but Usurba states, the accused said, that the Tongal General's orders were not to be obeyed, and that he would come and see about it.

Juttra Singh was present in the Tope Guard when the accused taxed the Tongal General with having ordered the death of the officers, but he did not wait for the end of the conversation. Usurba, the companion of Juttra, went to the Durbar Hall, and he saw the accused pass on his way to have an interview with the Tongal in the Tope Guard, and about half an hour afterwards, Yenkoiba came, from there and said that the General (Tongal) and ordered the British officers to be made over to the public executioner. He then describes how the officers were taken out of the Durbar Hall and murdered to the dragon gate, but he did not see the execution. He then went to the Tope Guard. In his examination-in-chief, he says, the accused was not there then in cross-examination, he says he was there.
Heda Chowbi, 11th witness, confirms the evidence of Usurba, but adds that when he returned to the Tope Guard, after making the officers over to the executioner, he found the accused there in conversation with the Tongal General, and according to this witness, the sirdar of executioners was present at the executions.

I The evidence of Yenkoiba, 14th witness, corrob8rates that of Usurba and Heda Chowbi, and gives some further important particulars. He says, for instance, that the Tongal General said to him “The Jubraj before this told you to give the Sahibs over to the executioner, why have you not done it p. And further on, he states that when Tongal General said this, the accused was in the same room apparently asleep. He says, he did not see the accused in the Tope Guard, when he went back there, after having made the officers over the executioner. He denies having called the executioner.

The executioner, tenth witness, gives details of the execution. He says, he was there by order of the Jubraj, and that Yenkoiba called him. The inference of his evidence is that the Sutwal, or chief executioner, was not present at the executions.
The Sutwal, or chief executioner, twelfth witness, corroborates the above, and is certain that Yenkoiba called them. He also states that he was not present at the execution. The evidence of all the Manipuri witnesses bears the impress of truth up to certain point, that is, not one of them, save the executioner, will admit having seen the executions, and their evidence as to what happened immediately on the executions is most unreliable.

The statement of Jattra Singh that he went away just as the accused and the Tongal General were arguing as to the murder of the officers, on whose behalf he had made such exertions, and in whose fate he had expressed so much interest, is altogether incredible, and such a statement car only be attributed to a disinclination to repeat the conversation he heard, The statement of the accu- sed that when he came back to the Tope Guard, to confer with the Tongal General about the latter having ordered the officers te be killed, and that after the General had given his reasons for giving such an order, that he, the accused, lay down and went to sleep, is almost beyond the bounds of credence, If he really did so, such an action would have implied nothing but consent to the murder of the officers, and that he had yielded to the arguments of the Tongal General, That the accused acquiesced in them, and that the second order for the executioners to be sent for, was the result of this acquiescence, the Court has no doubt; indeed, any other belief is impossible. The accused, according to his own account, returns to the Tope Guard wrathful with a Minister for having ordered British officers to be put to death; he argues the ase with him, and rebukes him, yet although the Minister is, next to himself, the greatest power in the State, and had shown himself more than anxious to murder the officers, the accused, after a little argument, lay down.

Such callousness, if he was really interested in the fate of the officers, is incomprehensible. He sent none of his followers to warn the sentries on no account to give the officers up to any one without his orders, nor did he have them removed to the citadel (only distant some 50 yards) where their safety would have been assured.

If Usurba refused in the first instance to carry out the orders of the Tongal General, without the distinct orders of the accused, and heard him express his disapproval and countermand the
order; and when he knew that when the second order came, the accused was close at hand in the Tope Guard. Usurba must have been given to understand that the result of the conference, to which he had seen the accused go, was a confirmation of the original order that the officers should be put to death.

Moreover, the fact that in the first instance the Tongal General merely ordered the sentries to kill the officers, and that in the second instance an order was made for their delivery to the public executioner, which gave the deed a sort of legal aspects and made of it a public ceremonial order by the ruling power, would warrant the assumption that in the second instance a far higher power than the Tongal General had ordered the execution. The fact that neither theTongal General, nor any of the parties directly concerned in the executions, were in any way punished by the accused, confirms this.

The court is unanimous in its opinion that the second count of the charge has been clearly proved against the accused. With reference to the third count there is no evidence to prove that the accu- sed was persent when the murders were committed; the Court finds the accused not guilty of his count

(Sd.) Sr. John FANCOURT MICHELL, Lt. Col.,

President.

(Sd.) R. K. RIDGWAY, MAJOR.

Commandant 44th G. R.

(Sd.) A. W. DAVIS, Dy. COMMR, Naga Hills.

The Place: Manipur, 10th june, 1891

FINDING AND SENTENCE.

The Court find that you, Tekendrajit Singh, are guilty of the 1st and 2nd counts of the charge that is to say, that you on or about the 24th March, 1891, at Manipur, waged war against the Queen-Empress and abetted the murder of the Chief Commissioner of Assam, Mr. Quinton; of Colonel Skene, 42nd G, R.; of Lieutenant Simpson, 43rd G. R.; and of Mr. Cossins, Assistant Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam.

The Court finds that you are not guilty of the third count of the charge.

The Court directs that you Tekendrajit Singh alias Jubraj, alias Senapati of Manipur, be hanged by the neck till you are dead.

(Sd.) ST. J. F. MICHELL, President.
(Sd.) R. K. RIDGEWAY
(Sd.) A. W. DAVIS Members

Manipur, 11th June.

The above sentenee is subject to the confirmation of the Governor-General in Council, to whom the record of this trial will be forwarded.

[ms111-1] 

THE TRIAL OF THE SENAPATI.

THE JUDGMENT.

FIRST COUNT OF THE CHARGE.

The accused pleads not guilty to the first court of the charge against him, viz., waging war againsä the Queen-Empress, and though he admits having fired upon the British troops sent to arrest him, he states that he did so more in self-defence than with any idea of waging war against the Queen.
That it was the intention of the Manipuri Durbar to resist forcibly any order of the Government of India, which was not in accordance with their wishes. We have the evidence of Bamon Charan Mukerji, clerk to the Regent, who states that preparation for resistance and attack was made a fortnight before the arrival of the Chief Commissioner.
The Manipnri Durbar had heard that the late Maharaja of Manipur, who had abdicated, was on the road from Kohima to Manipur, in company with the Chief Commissioner of Assam, and the accused does not deny that warlike preparations were made to resist. The accused was President of the Council, when it was decided to send 1,000 Manipuri solders to Mao Thana to oppose the advance. It was only on receipt of a telegraphic message, stating that the ex-Maharaja was not in company with the Chief Commissioner, that this most daring attempt to oppose the Government of India's orders, was abandoned.

We may take the events which occurred from the 21st March, when the Chief Commissioner arrived at Sengmai; up to the night of the 23rd Mareh, as related by the witnesses, and the accu. sed himself, as they agree, except on the points (1) of an interview with Mr. Grimwood; (2) the illness of the accused, and (3) his presence at the (Regent's) Durbar.

The plea of sudden illness, through which the accused was unable to attend any Durbar on the 22nd and 23rd, cannot be accepted as valid. Every thing tends to prove that it was a mere preference to avoid a meeting with the Chief Commissioner, The accused was able to meet the Chief Commissioner some miles out of Manipur; he was able to attend the Durbar at noon on the same day on horse-back; and it was only after he had been kept waiting outside the Residency-gate some little time that he returned to his house.
His suspicions had been aroused that he was about to be arrested. We have it in evidence that a rumour had been current for some time in Manipur that the accused's arrest was contemplated by the Chief Commissioner, and there is further evidence to show that the accused was well enough to attend the Regent's Durbar, on the afternoon of the 23rd, and to take an active part in the attack of the 24th. Babu Bamon Charan Mukerji, second witness, states that the accused was present at the Regent's Durbar on the afternoon of the 23rd March, held in the palace, to discuss the orders of Government. The accused states, he was not there. The second witness, Babu Bamon Charan, has given his evidence throughout in a most starightforward manner, and appears to have a good memory of the smallest details which happened, and his evidence on this point may be accepted. We come then to the morning of the 24th March.

It is proved by all the witnesses for the prosecution, and admitted by the accused and the witnesses for the defence, that firing between the Manipuris and British soldiers commenced early on the morning of the 24th, and continued uninterruptedly all day, until about eight o'clock in the evening. The accused pleads in extenuation that his troops were fired on first.

Of his own witnesses, only one, the third asserts that the British fired first, and this witness was, by his own admission, not in a position to make any such assertion, as he states he was awakened by the sound of firing and immediately ran away; whereas on the other hand, we have the evidence of Captain Butcher, Lieutenant Chatterton and Havildar Dhup Chand, that the British troops did not open fire first, and both officers testify to the strict orders given to officers commanding parties that our 'troops were not to fire unless fired on first. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that the first fire came from the Manipur side. The accused is proved by the evidence to have taken an active part in the attack on the Residency on the 24th, He was found at an early hour in the morning, superintending the men at the north west corner of the ramparts, from which the Manipuris were firing on his own house, then occupied by the British troops. He was found in the evening superintending the laying of a gun, and the construction of an embrasure at the west wall and he admits being in command and ordering the “cease fires on the evening of the 24th. It is impossible to doubt that he could, had he so wished, have stopped the fire of his troops on the British at any moment, and hoisted a flag of truce. Finally, he demanded the surrender of the British troops on the night of the 24th.

The court are unanimous in the opinion that the first count of the charge has been proved against the accused.

TRIAL OF THE GUARD

This morning nine men who composed the guard placed over Mr. Quinton's party by the Jubraj, and to whom he gave orders to take care of the Sahibs, were put on their trial before Maxwell, Chief Political officer.

ANGAO MINGTO'S STATEMENT.

The first witness for the prosecution was Angao Mingto, whose evidence was much the same as that given in the previous trials. He acknowledged receiving orders from the Jubraj to see the Sahibs safely out, and stated that he gave directions to the prisoners to watch over the officers and see that no harm befell them. After this, witness went away to eat his food, and did not hear of the murder of the Sahibs until his return.

JUTTRA SING'S STATEMENT.

The next witness was Juttra Singh, who gave w similar evidence, and acknowledged that Angao Mingto had handed over the captured Europeans to his care. But notwithstanding this, witness stated that when the Jubraj and Tongal bad a con- versation in the Tope-guard regarding the killing of the officers, he, witness, seeing that something dreadful was to happen, went away to his quarters tu sleep and did not hear of the murder of the officers until next morning. This witness alsa stated that he never saw Mr. Grimwood's body near the steps, nor did he know how he was killed.

USURBA'S DEFENCE.

The statement in defence of Usurba, the first prisoner, contained no new facts, except a confession that he knew that the Sahibs were to be killed at the time when he made them over to the executioners, He acknowledged doing this by order of the Tongal, although on a previous occasion he had refused to obey the order given by the Tongal to kill the Sahibs, Witness gave as a reason for obeying this second order that he knew that the Tongal was closeted with the Jubraj, and hence that the order met with the Jubraj's approval.

SECOND COUNT.

It is admitted that the British officers met the accused at a Durbar inside the Fort on the night of the 24th March. The accused states that after expressions of regret on both sides as to the event which had occured during the day, he required the British troops to lay down their arms, and on this condition alone, would he give them a safe conduct to kohima, and he mentioned that the Manipuri troops were so infuriated as to be quite beyond his control.

On the refusal of the Chief Commissioner to accede to the terms, the Durbar broke up'; the accused left the Durbar and proceeded in the direction of the Tope Guard, leaving the British officers to make their way out as best they could, in the opposed direction. This action, so contrary to the strict Oriental ideas of etiquette, and quite opposite to the usual custom in Manipur, was very expressive of anger against, and contempt for the British representative.

The crowd, already excited, and encouraged no doubt by this attitude of their Prince, at once broke out into demonstrations of violence against the officers, stirking at them with spears, the butts of their rifles and swords, and shouting out “kill, kill,” One of the officers was wounded, and it was only owing to the exertions of Angao Mingto that the officers were enabled to gain the shelter of rhe Durbar Hall steps. One of them, Mr. Grimwood was stabbed just as he entered the gate of the compound fell under the steps, and died there. The accused, hearing the uproar, returned and drove off the crowd, apparently without any great difficulty. This affords strong proof of the great control he possessed over his men. He then ordered Angao Mingto to guard the officers safely, and went away, making no fur. ther efforts for their safety, although he had seen the dead body of Mr. Grimwood for whom he claims to have entertained strong personal friendship, lying under the steps, and must have known in what imminent danger the lives of the remainder were.

He made no effort to see the officers safe to their camp. He says, he did not do this owing to the heavy firing going on at the time; but we have conclusive evidence to prove that firing did not recommence until midnight and the Dur- bar has been proved to have been held at about nine o'clock. The accused himself, further on, states that when he was met on the wall by Jattra Sing and Usurba, there was no firing going on, and these witnesses sought him on the wall shortly after he left the Durbar-room. This excuse may, therefore, be dismissed as untrue.

It is evident that the accused could not have been doubtful of his power to conduct the efficers outside the gates, had he wished to do so, for his own men had just given him an excellent proof of their obedience and of the influence he possesed over them. Even had the above excuses been valid, there was nothing to prevent his taking the officers either to the Tope Guard or to the citadel, where they would have been in perfect safety.
He merely told Angao Mingto to guard them and went off to the ramparts to look after the troops, proving thereby that if he had not then desired to kill the officers, he intended to keep them prisoners, for some ends of his own. While the accused was on the ramparts, Juttra Singh and Usurba reported to him that the Tongal General had given orders for the officers to be killed, but they wanted his, the accused's orders. There is some discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses. Juttra Singh says, the accused merely said: 'Let us go and consult the old man, but Usurba states, the accused said, that the Tongal General's orders were not to be obeyed, and that he would come and see about it.

Juttra Singh was present in the Tope Guard when the accused taxed the Tongal General with having ordered the death of the officers, but he did not wait for the end of the conversation. Usurba, the companion of Juttra, went to the Durbar Hall, and he saw the accused pass on his way to have an interview with the Tongal in the Tope Guard, and about half an hour afterwards, Yenkoiba came, from there and said that the General (Tongal) and ordered the British officers to be made over to the public executioner. He then describes how the officers were taken out of the Durbar Hall and murdered to the dragon gate, but he did not see the execution. He then went to the Tope Guard. In his examination-in-chief, he says, the accused was not there then in cross-examination, he says he was there.
Heda Chowbi, 11th witness, confirms the evidence of Usurba, but adds that when he returned to the Tope Guard, after making the officers over to the executioner, he found the accused there in conversation with the Tongal General, and according to this witness, the sirdar of executioners was present at the executions.

I The evidence of Yenkoiba, 14th witness, corrob8rates that of Usurba and Heda Chowbi, and gives some further important particulars. He says, for instance, that the Tongal General said to him “The Jubraj before this told you to give the Sahibs over to the executioner, why have you not done it p. And further on, he states that when Tongal General said this, the accused was in the same room apparently asleep. He says, he did not see the accused in the Tope Guard, when he went back there, after having made the officers over the executioner. He denies having called the executioner.

The executioner, tenth witness, gives details of the execution. He says, he was there by order of the Jubraj, and that Yenkoiba called him. The inference of his evidence is that the Sutwal, or chief executioner, was not present at the executions.
The Sutwal, or chief executioner, twelfth witness, corroborates the above, and is certain that Yenkoiba called them. He also states that he was not present at the execution. The evidence of all the Manipuri witnesses bears the impress of truth up to certain point, that is, not one of them, save the executioner, will admit having seen the executions, and their evidence as to what happened immediately on the executions is most unreliable.

The statement of Jattra Singh that he went away just as the accused and the Tongal General were arguing as to the murder of the officers, on whose behalf he had made such exertions, and in whose fate he had expressed so much interest, is altogether incredible, and such a statement car only be attributed to a disinclination to repeat the conversation he heard, The statement of the accu- sed that when he came back to the Tope Guard, to confer with the Tongal General about the latter having ordered the officers te be killed, and that after the General had given his reasons for giving such an order, that he, the accused, lay down and went to sleep, is almost beyond the bounds of credence, If he really did so, such an action would have implied nothing but consent to the murder of the officers, and that he had yielded to the arguments of the Tongal General, That the accused acquiesced in them, and that the second order for the executioners to be sent for, was the result of this acquiescence, the Court has no doubt; indeed, any other belief is impossible. The accused, according to his own account, returns to the Tope Guard wrathful with a Minister for having ordered British officers to be put to death; he argues the ase with him, and rebukes him, yet although the Minister is, next to himself, the greatest power in the State, and had shown himself more than anxious to murder the officers, the accused, after a little argument, lay down.

Such callousness, if he was really interested in the fate of the officers, is incomprehensible. He sent none of his followers to warn the sentries on no account to give the officers up to any one without his orders, nor did he have them removed to the citadel (only distant some 50 yards) where their safety would have been assured.

If Usurba refused in the first instance to carry out the orders of the Tongal General, without the distinct orders of the accused, and heard him express his disapproval and countermand the
order; and when he knew that when the second order came, the accused was close at hand in the Tope Guard. Usurba must have been given to understand that the result of the conference, to which he had seen the accused go, was a confirmation of the original order that the officers should be put to death.

Moreover, the fact that in the first instance the Tongal General merely ordered the sentries to kill the officers, and that in the second instance an order was made for their delivery to the public executioner, which gave the deed a sort of legal aspects and made of it a public ceremonial order by the ruling power, would warrant the assumption that in the second instance a far higher power than the Tongal General had ordered the execution. The fact that neither theTongal General, nor any of the parties directly concerned in the executions, were in any way punished by the accused, confirms this.

The court is unanimous in its opinion that the second count of the charge has been clearly proved against the accused. With reference to the third count there is no evidence to prove that the accu- sed was persent when the murders were committed; the Court finds the accused not guilty of his count

(Sd.) Sr. John FANCOURT MICHELL, Lt. Col.,

President.

(Sd.) R. K. RIDGWAY, MAJOR.

Commandant 44th G. R.

(Sd.) A. W. DAVIS, Dy. COMMR, Naga Hills.

The Place: Manipur, 10th june, 1891

FINDING AND SENTENCE.

The Court find that you, Tekendrajit Singh, are guilty of the 1st and 2nd counts of the charge that is to say, that you on or about the 24th March, 1891, at Manipur, waged war against the Queen-Empress and abetted the murder of the Chief Commissioner of Assam, Mr. Quinton; of Colonel Skene, 42nd G, R.; of Lieutenant Simpson, 43rd G. R.; and of Mr. Cossins, Assistant Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam.

The Court finds that you are not guilty of the third count of the charge.

The Court directs that you Tekendrajit Singh alias Jubraj, alias Senapati of Manipur, be hanged by the neck till you are dead.

(Sd.) ST. J. F. MICHELL, President.
(Sd.) R. K. RIDGEWAY
(Sd.) A. W. DAVIS Members

Manipur, 11th June.

The above sentenee is subject to the confirmation of the Governor-General in Council, to whom the record of this trial will be forwarded.

[১]