have mentioned, that no quarter would be granted. It was a necessity of war. But beyond the deaths he inflicted in fair fight, the British soldier perpetrated no unnecessary slaughter. He merited to the full the character given to his predecessor in the Peninsular War by Sir William Napier. He proved by his conduct that, 'whilst no physical military qualification was wanting, the fount of honour was still full and fresh within him.'
It has been said that, in certain cases, a new kind of death was invented for convicted rebels, and that the punishment of blowing away from guns was intended to deprive the victim of those rites, the want of which doomed him, according to his view, to eternal perdition. Again, I assert that there is absolutely no foundation for this statement. The punishment itself was no new one in India. It was authorised by courts-martial, the members of which were native officers. Its infliction did not necessarily deprive the victim of all hope of happiness in a future life. The fact, moreover, that the Government of India, jealously careful never to interfere with the religious beliefs of the natives, sanctioned it, is quite sufficient to dispel the notion I have mentioned. The blowing away of criminals from guns was a punishment which was resorted to only when it was necessary to strike a terror which should act as a deterrent. It was in this sense that Colonel Sherer had recourse to it at Jalpaigúrí;[1] and it is indisputable that he thus saved thousands of lives, and, possibly, staved off a great catastrophe.
Whilst on the question of punishments, I am desirous to disprove an assertion so often repeated that it has been accepted as true — that the term 'Clemency Canning' was invented in Calcutta by the men who opposed the policy of the Government of India. The term 'Clemency
- ↑ Page 348.
