THE BOMBAY CITY POLICE
[Illustration: Mounted Police Constable
Bombay City]
THE BOMBAY CITY POLICE
A HISTORICAL SKETCH
1672-1916
BY
S. M. EDWARDES, C.S.I., C.V.O.,
_formerly of the Indian Civil Service and sometime
Commissioner of Police, Bombay_
[Illustration]
HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS
1923
PREFACE
I have been prompted to prepare this brief record of the past history
and growth of the Bombay Police Force by the knowledge that, except
for a few paragraphs in Volume II of the _Gazetteer of Bombay City and
Island_, no connected account exists of the police administration of the
City. Considering how closely interwoven with the daily life of the mass
of the population the work of the Force has always been, and how large
a contribution to the welfare and progress of the City has been made by
successive Commissioners of Police, it seems well to place permanently
on record in an accessible form the more important facts connected with
the early arrangements for watch and ward and crime-prevention, and to
describe the manner in which the Heads of the Force carried out the heavy
responsibilities assigned to them.
The year 1916 is a convenient date for the conclusion of this historical
sketch; for in September of that year commenced the violent agitation for
Home Rule which under varying names and varying leadership, and despite
concessions and political reforms, kept India in a state of unrest during
the following five or six years.
Other considerations also suggest that the narrative may close most fitly
in the year preceding the memorable pronouncement in Parliament, which
ushered in the recent constitutional reforms. No one can foretell what
changes may hereafter take place in the character and constitution of
the City Police Force; but it is improbable that the Force can remain
unaffected by the altered character of the general administration. Ere
old conditions and old landmarks disappear, it seems to me worth while to
compile a succinct history of the Force, as it existed before the era of
“democratic” reform.
I am indebted to the present Acting Commissioner of Police for the
photographs of the portraits hanging in the Head Police Office and of
the types of constabulary; to the Record-Keeper at the India Office
for giving me access to various police reports and official papers
dating from 1859 to 1916; and to Mr. Sivaram K. Joshi, 1st clerk in the
Commissioner’s office, who spent much of his leisure time in making
inquiries and framing answers to various queries which the Bombay
Government kindly forwarded at my request to the Head Police Office.
S. M. EDWARDES
London, 1923
CONTENTS
Page
I The Bhandari Militia, 1672-1800 1
II The Rise of the Magistracy, 1800-1855 20
III Mr. Charles Forjett, 1855-1863 39
IV Sir Frank Souter Kt., C. S. I., 1864-1888 54
V Lieut-Colonel W. H. Wilson, 1888-1893 79
VI Mr. R. H. Vincent, C. I. E., 1893-1898 90
VII Mr. Hartley Kennedy, C. S. I., 1899-1901 107
VIII Mr. H. G. Gell, M. V. O., 1902-1909 120
IX Mr. S. M. Edwardes, C. S. I., C. V. O., 1909-16 148
ILLUSTRATIONS
Mounted Police Constable Frontispiece
Armed Police Constable To face page 9
Police Constable ” ” 34
Sir Frank Souter ” ” 54
Armed Police Jamadar ” ” 59
Lieut-Col. W. H. Wilson ” ” 79
Mr. R. H. Vincent ” ” 90
Khan Bahadur Sheikh Ibrahim Sheikh Imam ” ” 97
Mr. Hartley Kennedy ” ” 107
Mr. H. G. Gell ” ” 120
Rao Sahib Daji Gangaji Rane ” ” 133
Mr. S. M. Edwardes ” ” 148
THE BOMBAY CITY POLICE
A HISTORICAL SKETCH
1672-1916
CHAPTER I
THE BHANDARI MILITIA
1672-1800
A perusal of the official records of the early period of British rule
in Bombay indicates that the credit of first establishing a force for
the prevention of crime and the protection of the inhabitants belongs
to Gerald Aungier, who was appointed Governor of the Island in 1669 and
filled that office with conspicuous ability until his death at Surat in
1677. Amidst the heavy duties which devolved upon him as President of
Surat and Governor of the Company’s recently acquired Island,[1] and at a
time when the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Mogul, the Sidi and the Marathas
offered jointly and severally a serious menace to the Company’s trade
and possessions, Aungier found leisure to organize a rude militia under
the command of _Subehdars_, who were posted at Mahim, Sewri, Sion and
other chief points of the Island.[2] This force was intended primarily
for military protection, as a supplement to the regular garrison. That
it was also employed on duties which would now be performed by the civil
police, is clear from a letter of December 15, 1673, from Aungier and his
council to the Court of Directors, in which the chief features of the
Island and its administrative arrangements are described in considerable
detail.[3] After mentioning the strength of the forces at Bombay and
their distribution afloat and ashore, the letter proceeds:—
“There are also three companies of militia, one at Bombay,
one at Mahim, and one at Mazagon, consisting of Portuguese
black Christians. More confidence can be placed in the Moors,
Bandareens and Gentus than in them, because the latter are
more courageous and show affection and good-will to the
English Government. These companies are exercised once a month
at least, and serve as _night-watches against surprise and
robbery_.”
A little while prior to Aungier’s death, when John Petit was serving
under him as Deputy Governor of Bombay, this militia numbered from 500
to 600, all of whom were landholders of Bombay. Service in the militia
was in fact compulsory on all owners of land, except “the Braminys
(Brahmans) and Bannians (Banias),” who were allowed exemption on a money
payment.[4] The majority of the rank and file were Portuguese Eurasians
(“black Christians”), the remainder including Muhammadans (“Moors”), who
probably belonged chiefly to Mahim, and Hindus of various castes, such as
“Sinays” (Shenvis), “Corumbeens” (Kunbis) and “Coolys” (Kolis).[5] The
most important section of the Hindu element in this force of military
night-watchmen was that of the Bhandaris (“Bandareens”), whose ancestors
formed a settlement in Bombay in early ages, and whose modern descendants
still cherish traditions of the former military and political power of
their caste in the north Konkan.
The militia appears to have been maintained more or less at full strength
during the troubled period of Sir John Child’s governorship (1681-90).
It narrowly escaped disbandment in 1679, in pursuance of Sir Josia
Child’s ill-conceived policy of retrenchment: but as the orders for
its abolition arrived at the very moment when Sivaji was threatening
a descent on Bombay and the Sidi was flouting the Company’s authority
and seizing their territory, even the subservient John Child could not
face the risk involved in carrying out the instructions from home;
and in the following year the orders were rescinded.[6] The force,
however, did not wholly escape the consequences of Child’s cheese-paring
policy. By the end of 1682 there was only one ensign for the whole
force of 500, and of non-commissioned officers there were only three
sergeants and two corporals. Nevertheless the times were so troubled
that they had to remain continuously under arms.[7] It is therefore not
surprising that when Keigwin raised the standard of revolt against the
Company in December 1683, the militia sided in a body with him and his
fellow-mutineers, and played an active part in the bloodless revolution
which they achieved. Two years after the restoration of Bombay to Sir
Thomas Grantham, who had been commissioned by the Company to secure the
surrender of Keigwin and his associates, a further reference to the
militia appears in an order of November 15th, 1686, by Sir John Wyborne,
Deputy Governor, to John Wyat.[8] The latter was instructed to repair to
Sewri with two topasses and take charge of a new guard-house, to allow no
runaway soldiers or others to leave the island, to prevent cattle, corn
or provisions being taken out of Bombay, and to arrest and search any
person carrying letters and send him to the Deputy Governor. The order
concluded with the following words:—
“Suffer poor people to come and inhabit on the island; _and
call the militia to watch with you every night_, sparing the
Padre of Parel’s servants.”
The terms of the order indicate to some extent the dangers and
difficulties which confronted Bombay at this epoch; and it is a
reasonable inference that the duties of the militia were dictated
mainly by the military and political exigencies of a period in which
the hostility of the neighbouring powers in Western India and serious
internal troubles produced a constant series of “alarums and excursions”.
The close of the seventeenth and the earlier years of the eighteenth
century were marked by much lawlessness; and in the outlying parts of
Bombay the militia appears to have formed the only safeguard of the
residents against robbery and violence. This is clear from an order
of September 13, 1694, addressed by Sir John Gayer, the Governor, to
Jansanay (Janu Shenvi) Subehdar of Worli, Ramaji Avdat, Subehdar of
Mahim, Raji Karga, Subehdar of Sion, and Bodji Patan, Subehdar of Sewri.
“Being informed,” he wrote, “that certain ill people on this island go
about in the night to the number of ten or twelve or more, designing some
mischief or disturbance to the inhabitants, these are to enorder you to
go the rounds every night with twenty men at all places which you think
most suitable to intercept such persons.”[9] The strengthening of the
force at this period[10] and the increased activity of the night-patrols
had very little effect in reducing the volume of crime, which was a
natural consequence of the general weakness of the administration. The
appalling mortality among Europeans, the lack of discipline among the
soldiers of the garrison, the general immorality to which Ovington, the
chaplain, bore witness,[11] the prevalence of piracy and the lack of
proper laws and legal machinery, all contributed to render Bombay “very
unhealthful” and to offer unlimited scope to the lawless section of the
population.
As regards the law, judicial functions were exercised at the beginning of
the eighteenth century by a civil officer of the Company, styled Chief
Justice, and in important cases by the President in Council. Neither of
these officials had any real knowledge of law; no codes existed, except
two rough compilations made during Aungier’s governorship: and justice
was consequently very arbitrary. In 1726 this Court was exercising civil,
criminal, military, admiralty and probate jurisdiction; it also framed
rules for the price of bread and the wages of “black tailors”.[12]
Connected with the Court from 1720 to 1727 were the _Vereadores_,[13] a
body of native functionaries who looked after orphans and the estates
of persons dying intestate, and audited accounts. After 1726 they also
exercised minor judicial powers and seem to have partly taken the place
of the native tribunals, which up to 1696 administered justice to the
Indian inhabitants of the Island.[14] So matters remained until 1726,
when under the Charter creating Mayors’ Courts at Calcutta, Bombay and
Madras the Governor and Council were empowered to hold quarter sessions
for the trial of all offences except high treason, the President and the
five senior members of Council being created Justices of the Peace and
constituting a Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery.
For purposes of criminal justice Bombay was considered a county. The
curious state of the law at this date is apparent from the trial of a
woman, named Gangi, who was indicted in 1744 for petty treason in aiding
and abetting one Vitha Bhandari in the murder of her husband.[15] She
was found guilty and was sentenced to be burnt. Apparently the penalty
for compassing a husband’s death was the same as for high treason: and
the sentence of burning for petty treason was the only sentence the
Court could legally have passed. Twenty years earlier (1724) an ignorant
woman, by name Bastok, was accused of witchcraft and other “diabolical
practices.” The Court found her guilty, not from evil intent, but on
account of ignorance, and sentenced her to receive eleven lashes at the
church door and afterwards to do penance in the building.[16]
The system, whereby criminal jurisdiction was vested in the Governor
and Council, lasted practically till the close of the eighteenth
century. In 1753, for example, the Bombay Government was composed of
the Governor and thirteen councillors, all of whom were Justices of the
Peace and Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery. They
were authorised to hold quarter sessions and make bye-laws for the good
government etc. of Bombay: and to aid them in the exercise of their
magisterial powers as Justices, they had an executive officer, the
Sheriff, with a very limited establishment.[17] In 1757 and 1759 they
issued proclamations embodying various “rules for the maintenance of
the peace and comfort of Bombay’s inhabitants”; but with the possible
exception of the Sheriff, they had no executive agency to enforce the
observance of these rules and bye-laws, and no body of men, except the
militia, for the prevention and detection of offences. When, therefore,
in 1769 the state of the public security called loudly for reform, the
Bombay Government were forced to content themselves and their critics
with republishing these various proclamations and regulations—a course
which, as may be supposed, effected very little real good. In a letter to
the Court of Directors, dated December 20th, 1769, they reported that in
consequence of a letter from a bench of H. M.’s Justices they had issued
on August 26, 1769, “sundry regulations for the better conducting the
police of the place in general, particularly in respect to the markets
for provisions of every kind”; and these regulations were in due course
approved by the Court in a dispatch of April 25, 1771.[18]
Police arrangements, however, were still very unsatisfactory, and
crimes of violence, murder and robbery were so frequent outside the
town walls that in August, 1771, Brigadier-General David Wedderburn[19]
submitted proposals to the Bombay Government for rendering the Bhandari
militia[20], as it was then styled, more efficient. His plan may be said
to mark the definite employment of the old militia on regular police
duties. Accordingly the Bombay Bhandaris were formed into a battalion
composed of 48 officers and 400 men, which furnished nightly a guard of
12 officers and 100 men “for the protection of the woods.” This guard was
distributed as follows:—
4 officers and 33 men at Washerman’s Tank (Dhobi Talao).
4 ” ” 33 ” near Major Mace’s house.
4 ” ” 34 ” at Mamba Davy (Mumbadevi) tank.
From these posts constant patrols, which were in communication with one
another, were sent out from dark until gunfire in the morning, the whole
area between Dongri and Back Bay being thus covered during the night.
The _Vereadores_ were instructed to appoint not less than 20 trusty and
respectable Portuguese _fazendars_ to attend singly or in pairs every
night at the various police posts. All Europeans living in Sonapur or
Dongri had to obtain passes according to their class, _i.e._ those in
the marine forces from the Superintendent, those in the military forces
from their commanding officer, all other Europeans, not in the Company’s
service, but living in Bombay by permission of the Government, from
the Secretary to Government, and all artificers employed in any of the
offices from the head of their office.
The duties of the patrols were to keep the peace, to seize all
persons found rioting, pending examination, to arrest all robbers and
house-breakers, to seize all Europeans without passes, and all _coffrees_
(African slaves) found in greater numbers than two together, or armed
with swords, sticks, knives or bludgeons. All _coffrees_ or other runaway
slaves were to be apprehended, and were punished by being put to work on
the fortifications for a year at a wage of Rs. 3 per month, or by being
placed aboard cruisers for the same term, a notice being published of
their age, size, country of origin and description, so that their masters
might have a chance of claiming them. If unclaimed by the end of twelve
months, they were shipped to Bencoolen in Sumatra.
The standing order to all persons to register their slaves was to be
renewed and enforced under a penalty. The Company agreed to pay the
Bhandari police Rs. 10 for every _coffree_ or runaway slave arrested
and placed on the works or on a cruiser; Re. 1 for every slave absent
from his work for three days; and Rs. 2 for every slave absent from duty
for one month; Re. 1 for every soldier or sailor absent from duty for
forty-eight hours, whom they might arrest; and 8 annas for every soldier
or sailor found drunk in the woods after 8 p.m. The money earned in the
latter cases was to be paid at once by the Marine Superintendent or the
Commanding Officer, as the case might be, and deducted from the pay of
the defaulter; and the total sum thus collected was to be divided once a
month or oftener among the Bhandaris on duty.
[Illustration: Armed Police Constable
Bombay City]
The officers in charge of the police posts and the Portuguese
_fazendars_, attached thereto, were to make a daily report of all that
had happened during the night and place all persons arrested by the
patrols before a magistrate for examination. The Bhandari patrols were
to assemble daily at 5 p.m. opposite to the Church Gate (of the Fort)
and, weather permitting, they were to be taught “firing motions and the
platoon exercise, and to fire balls at a mark, for which purpose some
good havaldars should attend to instruct them, and the adjutant of the
day or some other European officer should constantly attend.”
These Bhandari night-patrols, as organized by General Wedderburn, were
the germ from which sprang the later police administration of the
Island. We see the beginnings of police sections and divisions in the
three main night-posts with their complement of officers and men; the
forerunner of the modern divisional morning report in the daily report
of the patrol officer and the _fazendar_; and the establishment of an
armed branch in the fire-training given to the patrols in the evening.
The presence of the _fazendars_ was probably based on the occasional need
of an interpreter and of having some advisory check upon the exercise of
their powers by the patrols. In those early days the _fazendar_ may have
supplied the place of public opinion, which now plays no unimportant part
in the police administration of the modern city.
Notwithstanding these arrangements, the volume of crime showed no
diminution. Murder, robbery and theft were still of frequent occurrence
outside the Fort walls: and in the vain hope of imposing some check
upon the lawless element, the Bombay Government in August, 1776,
ordered parties of regular sepoys to be added to the Bhandari patrols.
Three years later, in February, 1779, they decided, apparently as an
experiment, to supplant the Bhandari militia entirely by patrols of
sepoys, which were to be furnished by “the battalion of sepoy marines”.
These patrols were to scour the woods nightly, accompanied by “a peace
officer”, who was to report every morning to the acting magistrate.[21]
Still there was no improvement, and the dissatisfaction of the general
public was forcibly expressed at the close of 1778 or early in the
following year by the grand Jury, which demanded a thorough reform of
the police.[22] In the course of their presentment they stated that
“the frequent robberies and the difficulties attending the detection
of aggressors, called loudly for some establishment clothed with such
authority as should effectually protect the innocent and bring the guilty
to trial”, and they proposed that His Majesty’s Justices should apply
to Government for the appointment of an officer with ample authority to
effect the end in view.[23]
This pronouncement of the Grand Jury was the precursor of the first
appointment of an executive Chief of Police in Bombay. On February 17,
1779, Mr. James Tod (or Todd) was appointed “Lieutenant of Police”, on
probation, with an allowance of Rs. 4 per diem, and on March 3rd of that
year he was sworn into office; a formal commission signed by Mr. William
Hornby, the Governor, was granted to him, and a public notification of
the creation of the office and of the powers vested in it was issued.
He was also furnished with copies of the regulations in force, and was
required by the terms of his commission to follow all orders given to him
by the Government or by the Justices of the Peace.[24]
Tod had a chequered career as head of the Bombay police. The first attack
upon him was delivered by the very body which had urged the creation of
his appointment. The Grand Jury, like the frogs of Æsop who demanded a
King, found the appointment little to their liking, and were moved in
the following July (1779) to present “the said James Todd as a public
nuisance, and his office of Police as of a most dangerous tendency”; and
they earnestly recommended “that it be immediately abolished, as fit only
for a despotic government, where a Bastille is at hand to enforce its
authority”.
The Government very properly paid no heed to this curious _volteface_
of the Grand Jury, and Tod was left free to draft a new set of police
regulations, which were badly needed, and to do what he could to bring
his force of militia into shape. His regulations were submitted on
December 31, 1779, and were approved by the Bombay Council and ordered to
be published on January 26th, 1780. They were based upon notifications
and orders previously issued from time to time at the Presidency and
approved by the Justices, and were eventually registered in the Court
of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery on April 17, 1780. Between
the date of their approval by the Council and their registration by
the Court, Tod revised them on the lines of the Police regulations
adopted in Calcutta in 1778.[25] It was further provided at the time of
their registration that “a Bench of Justices during the recess of the
Sessions should be authorized from time to time to make any necessary
alterations and amendments in the code, subject to their being affirmed
or reversed at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace next ensuing”.
Tod’s regulations, which numbered forty-one, were the only rules for
the management of the police which had been passed up to that date in a
formal manner. They were first approved in Council, as mentioned above,
by the authority of the Royal Charter of 1753, granted to the East India
Company, and were then published and registered at the Sessions under the
authority conveyed by the subsequent Act (13 Geo. III) of 1773. They thus
constituted the earliest Bombay Police Code.
Meanwhile Tod found his new post by no means a bed of roses. On November
30th, 1779, he wrote to the Council stating that his work as Lieutenant
of Police had created for him many enemies and difficulties. He had
twice been indicted for felony and had been honourably acquitted on
both occasions: but he still lived in continual dread of blame. “By
unremitting and persevering attention to duty I have made many and
bitter enemies”, he wrote, “in consequence of which I have been obliged
in great measure to give up my bread.” He added that his military title
of Lieutenant of Police had proved obnoxious to many, and he offered to
resign it, suggesting at the same time that, following the precedent
set by Calcutta, he should be styled Superintendent of Police. Lastly
he asked the Council to fix his emoluments. The censure of the Grand
Jury, quoted in a previous paragraph, indicates clearly the opposition
with which Tod was faced; and one cannot but sympathize with an officer
whose endeavours to perform his duty efficiently resulted in his
arraignment before a criminal court. That he was honourably acquitted on
both occasions shows that at this date at any rate he was the victim of
malicious persecution.
As regards the style and title of his appointment, the Bombay Council
endorsed his views, and on March 29th, 1780, they declared the office
of Lieutenant of Police annulled, and created in its place the office
of Deputy of Police on a fixed salary of Rs. 3,000 a year. Accordingly
on April 5th, 1780, Tod formally relinquished his former office and
was appointed Deputy of Police, being permitted to draw his salary of
Rs. 3,000 a year with retrospective effect from the date of his first
appointment as “Lieutenant”. On the same day he submitted the revised
code of police regulations, which was formally registered in the Court of
Oyer and Terminer on April 17th. In abolishing the post of Lieutenant the
Bombay Government anticipated by a few months the order of the Court of
Directors, who wrote as follows on July 5th, 1780:—
“Determined as we are to resist every attempt that may be made
to create new offices at the expense of the Company, we cannot
but be highly displeased with your having appointed an officer
in quality of Lieutenant of Police with a salary of Rs. 4 a
day. Whatever sum may have been paid in consequence must be
refunded. If such an officer be of that utility to the public
as you have represented, the public by some tax or otherwise
should defray the charges thereof.”
Before leaving the subject of the actual appointment, it is to be
noted that at some date previous to 1780 the office of High Constable
was annexed to that of Deputy of Police; for, in his letter to the
Court of Sessions asking for the confirmation and publication of his
police regulations, Tod describes himself as “Deputy of Police and High
Constable”. No information, however, is forthcoming as to when this
office was created, nor when it was amalgamated with the appointment of
Deputy of Police.[26]
The actual details of Tod’s police administration are obscure. At the
outset he was apparently hampered by lack of funds, for which the Bombay
Government had made no provision. On January 17th, 1780, he submitted to
them an account of sums which he had advanced and expended in pursuance
of his duties as executive head of the police, and also informed the
Council that twenty-four constables, “who had been sworn in for the
villages without the gates”, had received no pay and consequently
had, in concert with the Bhandaris, been exacting heavy fees from the
inhabitants. Tod requested the Government to pay the wages due to these
men, or, failing that, to authorize payment by a general assessment on
all heads of families residing outside the gates of the town. The Council
reimbursed Tod’s expenses and issued orders for an assessment to meet
the cost of the constabulary.
While allowing for the many difficulties confronting him, Tod cannot
be held to have achieved much success as head of the police. His old
critics, the Grand Jury, returned to the charge at the Sessions which
opened on April 30th, 1787, and protested in strong terms against “the
yet inefficient state of every branch of the Police, which required
immediate and effectual amendment”. “That part of it” they said, “which
had for its object the personal security of the inhabitants and their
property was not sufficiently vigorous to prevent the frequent repetition
of murder, felony, and every other species of atrociousness—defects that
had often been the subject of complaint from the Grand Jury of Bombay,
but never with more reason than at that Sessions, as the number of
prisoners for various offences bore ample testimony.”
They animadverted on the want of proper regulations, on the great
difficulty of obtaining menial servants and the still greater difficulty
of retaining them in their service, on the enormous wages which they
demanded and their generally dubious characters. So far as concerned
the domestic servant problem, the Bombay public at the close of the
eighteenth century seems to have been in a position closely resembling
that of the middle-classes in England at the close of the Great War
(1914-18). The Grand Jury complained also of the defective state of the
high roads, of the uncleanliness of many streets in the Town, and of “the
filthiness of some of the inhabitants, being uncommonly offensive and a
real nuisance to society”. They objected to the obstruction caused by the
piling of cotton on the Green and in the streets, to the enormous price
of the necessaries of life, the bad state of the markets, and the high
rates of labour. They urged the Justices to press the Bombay Government
for reform and suggested “the appointment of a Committee of Police with
full powers to frame regulations and armed with sufficient authority to
carry them into execution, as had already been done with happy effect on
the representation of the Grand Juries at the other Presidencies.”
The serious increase of robbery and “nightly depredations” was ascribed
chiefly to the fact that all persons were allowed to enter Bombay
freely, without examination, and that the streets were infested with
beggars “calling themselves Faquiers and Jogees (Fakirs and Jogis)”,
who exacted contributions from the public. The beggar-nuisance is one
of the chief problems requiring solution in the modern City of Bombay:
and it may be some consolation to a harassed Commissioner of Police
to know that his predecessor of the eighteenth century was faced with
similar difficulties. The Grand Jury were not over-squeamish in their
recommendations on the subject. They advocated the immediate deportation
of all persons having no visible means of subsistence, and as a result
the police, presumably under Tod’s orders, sent thirteen suspicious
persons out of the Island.[27]
Three years later, in 1790, Tod’s administration came to a disastrous
close. He was tried for corruption. “The principal witness against him
(as must always happen)”, wrote Sir James Mackintosh, “was his native
receiver of bribes. He expatiated on the danger to all Englishmen of
convicting them on such testimony; but in spite of a topic which,
by declaring all black agents incredible, would render all white
villains secure, he was convicted; though—too lenient a judgment—he was
only reprimanded and suffered to resign his station”.[28] Sir James
Mackintosh, as is clear from his report of October, 1811, to the Bombay
Government, was stoutly opposed to the system of granting the chief
executive police officer wide judicial powers, such as those exercised by
Tod and his immediate successors: and his hostility to the system may
have led to his overlooking the exceptional difficulties and temptations
to which Tod was exposed. The Governor and his three Councillors, in whom
by Act XXIV, Geo. III, of 1785 (“for the better regulation and management
of the affairs of the East India Company and for establishing a Court
of Judicature”), the supreme judicial and executive administration of
Bombay were at this date vested, realized perhaps that Tod’s emoluments
of Rs. 250 a month were scarcely large enough to secure the integrity of
an official vested with such wide powers over a community, whose moral
standards were admittedly low, that Tod had done a certain amount of
good work under difficult conditions, and that the very nature of his
office was bound to create him many enemies. On these considerations they
may have deemed it right to temper justice with mercy and to permit the
delinquent to resign his appointment in lieu of being dismissed.
The identity of Tod’s immediate successor is unknown. Whoever he was, he
seems to have effected no amelioration of existing conditions. In 1793
the Grand Jury again drew pointed attention to “the total inadequacy
of the police arrangements for the preservation of the peace and the
prevention of crimes, and for bringing criminals to justice.” Bombay
was the scene of constant robberies by armed gangs, none of whom were
apprehended. The close of the eighteenth century was a period of chaos
and internecine warfare throughout a large part of India, and it is only
natural that Bombay should have suffered to some extent from the inroads
of marauders, tempted by the prospect of loot. A system of night-patrols,
weak in numbers and poorly paid, could not grapple effectively with
organized gangs of free-booters, nurtured on dangerous enterprises
and accustomed to great rapidity of movement. The complaints of the
Grand Jury, however, could not be overlooked, and led directly to the
appointment of a committee to consider the whole subject of the police
administration and suggest reform.
This committee was in the midst of its enquiry when Act XXXIII, Geo. III.
of 1793 was promulgated and rendered further investigation unnecessary.
Under that Act a Commission of the Peace, based upon the form adopted
in England, was issued for each Presidency by the Supreme Court of
Judicature in Bengal. The Governor and his Councillors remained _ex
officiis_ Justices of the Peace for the Island, and five additional
Justices were appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council on the
recommendation of the Bombay Government. The Commission of the Peace
further provided for the abolition of the office of Deputy of Police and
High Constable, and created in its place the office of Superintendent of
Police.
The first Superintendent of Police was Mr. Simon Halliday, who just prior
to the promulgation of the Act above-mentioned had been nominated by
the Justices to the office of High Constable. So much appears from the
records of the Court of Sessions; and one may presume that after the Act
came into operation in 1793 Mr. Halliday’s title was altered to that of
Superintendent. His powers were somewhat curtailed to accord with the
powers vested in the Superintendent of Police at Calcutta, and he was
bound to keep the Governor-in-Council regularly informed of all action
taken by him in his official capacity.
Mr. Halliday was in charge of the office of Superintendent of Police
until 1808. His assumption of office synchronized with a thorough
revision of the arrangements for policing the area outside the Fort,
which up to that date had proved wholly ineffective. Under the new
system, which is stated in Warden’s Report to have been introduced in
1793 and was approved by the Justices a little later, the troublesome
area known as “Dungree and the Woods” was split up into 14 police
divisions, each division being staffed by 2 Constables (European) and a
varying number of Peons (not exceeding 130 for the whole area), who were
to be stationary in their respective charges and responsible for dealing
with all illegal acts committed within their limits.
The disposition of this force of 158 men was as follows:—
------------------------------------+------------+--------+-------
| Number | Number |
Name of Chokey | of | of | Total
| Constables | Peons |
------------------------------------+------------+--------+-------
Washerman’s Tank (Dhobi Talao) | 2 | 12 | 14
Back Bay | 2 | 10 | 12
Palo (Apollo _i.e._ Girgaum Road) | 2 | 6 | 8
Girgen (Girgaum) | 2 | 12 | 14
Gowdevy (Gamdevi) | 2 | 8 | 10
Pillajee Ramjee[29] | 2 | 8 | 10
Moomladevy (Mumbadevi) | 2 | 10 | 12
Calvadevy (Kalbadevi) | 2 | 8 | 10
Sheik Maymon’s Market | | |
(Sheik Memon Street?) | 2 | 10 | 12
Butchers (Market?) | 2 | 10 | 12
Cadjees (Kazi’s market or post) | 2 | 8 | 10
Ebram Cowns (Ibrahim Khan’s | | |
market or post) | 2 | 8 | 10
Sat Tar (Sattad Street) | 2 | 12 | 14
Portuguese Church (Cavel) | 2 | 8 | 10
------------------------------------+------------+--------+-------
| 28 | 130 | 158
------------------------------------+------------+--------+-------
The names of the police-stations or _chaukis_ (chokeys) show that the
area thus policed included roughly the modern Dhobi Talao section and
the southern part of Girgaum, most of the present Market and Bhuleshwar
sections and the western parts of the modern Dongri and Mandvi sections.
In fact, the expression “Dongri and the Woods” represented the area which
formed the nucleus of what were known in the middle of the nineteenth
century as the “Old Town” and “New Town”. At the date of Mr. Halliday’s
appointment, this part of the Island was almost entirely covered with
oarts (_hortas_) and plantations, intersected by a few narrow roads;
and if one may judge by the illustration “A Night in Dongri” in _The
Adventures of Qui-hi_ (1816),[30] a portion of this area was inhabited
largely by disreputable persons.
Simultaneously with the introduction of the arrangements described above,
an establishment of “rounds” hitherto maintained by the arrack-farmer,
consisting of one clerk of militia, 4 havaldars and 86 sepoys, and
costing Rs. 318 per month, was abolished. Mahim, which was still regarded
as a suburb, had its own “Chief,” who performed general, magisterial
and police duties in that area; while other outlying places like Sion
and Sewri were furnished with a small body of native police under a
native officer, subject to the general supervision and control of the
Superintendent. In 1797 the condition of the public thoroughfares
and roads was so bad that, on the death in that year of Mr. Lankhut,
the Surveyor of Roads, his department was placed in charge of the
Superintendent of Police; while in 1800 the office of Clerk of the Market
was also annexed to that of the chief police officer, in pursuance of the
recommendations of a special committee. In the following year, 1801, the
old office of Chief of Mahim was finally abolished, and his magisterial
and police duties were thereupon vested in the Superintendent of Police.
To enable him to cope with this additional duty, an appointment of
Deputy Superintendent, officiating in the Mahim district, was created,
the holder of which was directly subordinate in all matters to the
Superintendent of Police. The first Deputy Superintendent was Mr. James
Fisher, who continued in office until the date (1808) of Mr. Halliday’s
retirement when he was succeeded by Mr. James Morley.
CHAPTER II
THE RISE OF THE MAGISTRACY
1800-1855
As has been shown in the preceding chapter, the importance of the office
of Superintendent of Police had been considerably enhanced by the year
1809. Excluding the control of markets and roads, which was taken from
him in that year, the Superintendent had executive control of all police
arrangements in the Island, exercised all the duties of a High Constable,
an Alderman and a Justice of the Peace, was Secretary of the Committee of
Buildings, a member of the Town Committee, and a member of the Buildings
Committee of H.M.’s Naval Offices in Bombay. He had been appointed a
Justice of the Peace at his own request, on the grounds that he would
thereby be enabled to carry out his police work more effectively.
His deputy at Mahim was also appointed a Justice of the Peace on the
publication of Act XLVIII, Geo. III. of 1808.
The year 1809 marks another crisis in the history of Bombay’s police
administration, to which several factors may be held to have contributed.
In the first place crime was still rampant and defied all attempts
to reduce it. Bodies of armed men continued to enter the Island, as
for example in 1806 and 1807, and to terrify, molest and loot the
residents; and though these gangs remained for some little time within
the Superintendent’s jurisdiction, they were never apprehended by the
police.[31] In his report of November 15, 1810, Warden refers also to
an attack by “Cossids”, _i.e._ _Kasids_ or letter-carriers, who must
have been induced to leave for the moment their ordinary duties as
postal-runners and messengers by the apparent immunity from arrest and
punishment enjoyed by the bands of regular thieves and free-booters. In
consequence of the general lawlessness traffic in stolen goods was at
this date a most lucrative profession, and obliged the Justices in 1797
to nominate individual goldsmiths and _shroffs_ as public pawnbrokers
for a term of five years, on condition that they gave security for good
conduct and furnished the police regularly with returns of valuable
goods sold or purchased by them.[32] Another source of annoyance to the
authorities was the constant desertion of sailors from the vessels of the
Royal Navy and of the East India Company. These men were rarely arrested
and the police appeared unable to discover their haunts. The peons,
_i.e._ native constables were declared to be seldom on duty, except
when they expected the Superintendent to pass, and to spend their time
generally in gambling and other vices. In brief, the police force was
so inefficient and crime was so widespread and uncontrolled that public
opinion demanded urgent reform.
In the second place, the old system whereby the Governor and his Council
constituted the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery disappeared
on the establishment in 1798 of a Recorder’s Court. The powers of the
Justices, who were authorized to hold Sessions of the Peace, remained
unimpaired, and nine of them, exclusive of the Members of Government,
were nominated for the Town and Island. It was inevitable that the
constitution of a competent judicial tribunal, presided over by a trained
lawyer, should, apart from other causes, lead to a general stock-taking
of the judicial administration of Bombay, and incidentally should direct
increased attention to the subject of the powers vested in the Police and
the source whence they drew their authority.
The powers of the Superintendent of Police at this epoch were very wide.
First, he had power to convict offenders summarily and punish them at the
police office. This procedure, in the opinion of the Recorder, Sir James
Mackintosh (1803-11), was quite illegal, inasmuch as the punishments
were inflicted under rules, which from 1753 to 1807 were not confirmed
by the Court of Directors and had therefore no validity. The rules made
between 1807 and 1811 were likewise declared by the same authority to
be invalid, as they had not been registered in the court of judicature.
On other grounds also the police rules authorizing this procedure were
_ultra vires_. Secondly, the Superintendent inflicted the punishment of
banishment and condemned offenders to hard labour in chains on public
works. Between February 28, 1808, and January 31, 1809, he (_i.e._ Mr.
Halliday) banished 217 persons from Bombay, and condemned 64 persons to
hard labour in the docks. During the three years, 1807-1809, about 200
offenders were thus condemned to work in chains. On the other hand, the
Superintendent frequently liberated prisoners before the expiry of their
sentence, and in this way released 26 persons on December 20, 1809,
without assigning any reason. He condemned persons also to flogging. He
kept _no_ record of his cases. “He may arrest 40 men in the morning”,
wrote Sir James Mackintosh, “he may try, convict and condemn them in the
forenoon; and he may close the day by exercising the Royal prerogative
of pardon towards them all.” It is hardly surprising that the mind of
the lawyer revolted against the system, and that in his indignation
he characterized the powers of the Superintendent as “a precipitate,
clandestine and arbitrary jurisdiction.”[33]
In the third place, the powers of the Governor-in-Council to enact police
regulations for Bombay were defined anew and enlarged by Act XLVII, Geo.
III. of 1808, under the provisions of which the Government was empowered
to nominate 16 persons, exclusive of the members of the Governor’s
Council, to act as Justices of the Peace. The promulgation of this Act,
which was received in Bombay in 1808, rendered necessary a thorough
revision of the conditions and circumstances of police control.
In consequence, therefore, of the prevalence of crime and the notorious
inefficiency and corruption of the Police, the hostility of the new
Recorder’s Court to the existing system of administration, and the need
of a new enactment under Act XLVII, the Bombay Government appointed a
committee in 1809 to review the whole position and make suggestions for
further reform. The President of the committee was Mr. F. Warden, Chief
Secretary to Government, who eventually submitted proposals in a letter
dated November 15, 1810. The urgent need of reform was emphasized by the
fact that the Superintendent of Police, Mr. Charles Briscoe, who had
succeeded Mr. Halliday in 1809, was tried at the Sessions of November,
1810, for corruption, as Tod had been in 1790, and that complaints
against the tyranny and inefficiency of the force were being daily
received by the authorities. Sir James Mackintosh was only expressing
public opinion when in 1811 he recommended Government “in their wisdom
and justice to abolish even the name of Superintendent of Police, and to
efface every vestige of an office of which no enlightened friend to the
honour of the British name can recollect the existence without pain.”
Warden’s proposals were briefly the following. He advocated the
adaptation to Bombay of Colquhoun’s system for improving the police
of London, and suggested the appointment on fixed salaries of two
executive magistrates for the criminal branch of the Police, to be
selected from among the Company’s servants or British subjects—“one for
the Town of Bombay, whose jurisdiction shall extend to the Engineer’s
limits and to Colaba, and to offences committed in the harbour of
Bombay, with a suitable establishment; and a second for the division
without the garrison, including the district of Mahim, with a suitable
establishment.” Both these magistrates were to have executive and
judicial functions, and were also to perform “municipal duties”.[34]
The active functions of the police were to be performed by a Deputy,
while “the control, influence, and policy” were to be centred in a
Superintendent-General of Police, aided by the two magistrates. The
latter officer was to be responsible for the recruitment of the Deputy’s
subordinates, and the _Mukadams_ (headmen) of each caste were to form
part of the police establishment.
Warden dealt at some length with the qualifications and powers
which the chief police officer should possess. He proposed that the
Superintendent’s power of inflicting corporal punishment should be
abolished, and that his duties should extend only to the apprehension,
not to the punishment, of offenders; to the enforcement of regulations
for law and order; to the superintendence of the scavenger’s and
road-repairing departments; to watching “the motley group of characters
that infest this populous island;” and to the vigilant supervision of
houses maintained for improper and illegal purposes. “He should be
the arbitrator of disputes between the natives, arising out of their
religious prejudices. He should have authority over the Harbour, and
should be in charge of convicts subjected to hard labour in the Docks,
and those sent down to Bombay under sentence of transportation. He
should not be the whole day closeted in his chamber, but abroad and
active in the discharge of his duty; he should now and then appear
where least expected. The power and vital influence of the office, and
not its name only, should be known and felt. He ought to number among
his acquaintances every rogue in the place and know all their haunts
and movements. A character of this description is not imaginary, nor
difficult of formation. We have heard of a Sartine and a Fouché; a
Colquhoun exists; and I am informed that the character of Mr. Blaqueire
at Calcutta, as a Magistrate, is equally efficient.” Warden, indeed,
demanded a kind of “admirable Crichton,”—strictly honest, yet the
boon-companion of every rascal in Bombay, keeping abreast of his
office-work by day and perambulating the more dangerous haunts of the
local criminals by night. It is only on rare occasions that a man of such
varied abilities and energy is forthcoming: and nearly half a century was
destined to elapse before Bombay found a Police Superintendent who more
than fulfilled the high standard recommended by the Chief Secretary in
1810.
The upshot of the Police Committee’s enquiry and of the report of its
President was the publication of Rule, Ordinance and Regulation I of
1812, which was drafted by Sir James Mackintosh in 1811, and formed the
basis of the police administration of Bombay until 1856. Under this
Regulation, three Justices of the Peace were appointed Magistrates of
Police with the following respective areas of jurisdiction:—
(_a_) The Senior Magistrate, for the Fort and Harbour.
(_b_) The Second Magistrate, for the area between the Fort
Walls and a line drawn from the northern boundary of Mazagon to
Breach Candy.
(_c_) The Third Magistrate, with his office at Mahim, for all
the rest of the Island.[35]
Included in the official staff of these three magistrates were:—
a Purvoe (_i.e._ Prabhu clerk) on Rs. 50 per month
a Cauzee (Kazi) ” ” 8 ” ”
a Bhut (Bhat, Brahman) ” ” 8 ” ”
a Jew Cauzee (Rabbi) ” ” 12 ” ”
an Andaroo (Parsi Mobed) ” ” 6 ” ”
Two Constables each ” ” 9 ” ”
One Havildar ” ” 8 ” ”
Four Peons each ” ” 6 ” ”
The executive head of the Police force was a Deputy of Police and High
Constable on a salary of Rs. 500 a month, while the general control
and deliberative powers were vested in a Superintendent-General of
Police. All appointments of individuals to the subordinate ranks
of the force were made by the Magistrates of Police, who with the
Superintendent-General met regularly as a Bench to consider all matters
appertaining to the police administration of Bombay. European constables
were appointed by the Justices at Quarter Sessions, and the _Mukadams_
or headmen of each caste formed an integral feature of the police
establishment.
The strength and cost of the force in 1812 were as follows:—
1 Deputy of Police and Head
Constable Rs. 500 per month
2 European Assistants (at Rs.
100 each) Rs. 200 ” ”
3 Purvoes (Prabhus, clerks) Rs. 110 ” ”
1 Inspector of Markets Rs. 80 ” ”
2 Overseers of Roads (respectable
natives at 50 each) Rs. 100 ” ”
12 Havaldars (at Rs. 8 each) Rs. 96 ” ”
8 Naiks (at Rs. 7 each) Rs. 56 ” ”
6 European Constables Rs. 365 ” ”
50 Peons (at Rs. 6 each) Rs. 300 ” ”
1 Battaki man Rs. 6 ” ”
1 Havaldar and 12 Peons for the
Mahim patrol Rs. 80 ” ”
_Harbour Police._
7 Boats _i.e._ 49 men Rs. 300 ” ”
1 Purvoe Rs. 50 ” ”
4 Peons (at Rs. 6 each) Rs. 24 ” ”
Contingencies Rs. 74 ” ”
Thus, including the Deputy of Police, the land force comprised 10
Europeans, one of whom was in charge of the markets, and 86 Indians, of
whom two were inspectors of roads. The clerical staff consisted of three
Prabhus. The water-police consisted of 53 Indians and one clerk. The cost
of the force, including the water-police, amounted to Rs. 27,204 a year,
to which had to be added Rs. 888 for contingencies, Rs. 1425 for the
clothing of havaldars and peons, and Rs. 2000 for stationery.[36]
The inclusion in the magisterial establishment of “a Cauzee” etc.
requires brief comment. Down to 1790 the administration of criminal
justice in India was largely in the hands of Indian judges and officials
of various denominations, though under European supervision in various
forms; and even after that date, when the native judiciary had ceased
to exist except in quite subordinate positions, the law that was
administered in criminal cases was in substance Muhammadan law, and a
Kazi and a Mufti were retained in the provincial courts of appeal and
circuit as the exponents of Muhammadan law and the deliverers of a formal
_fatwa_. The term Kazi on this account remained in formal existence till
the abolition of the Sadr Courts in 1862.[37] The object of associating
Kazis with the Bombay magistrates of police at the opening of the
nineteenth century was doubtless to ensure that in all cases brought
before them, involving questions of the law, customs and traditions of
the chief communities and sects inhabiting the Island, the magistrates
should have the advantage of consulting those who were able to interpret
and give a ruling on such matters. The Kazi proper was the authority on
all matters relating to the Muhammadan community; the “Jew Cauzee” on
matters relating to the Bene-Israel, who from 1760 to the middle of the
nineteenth century contributed an important element to the Company’s
military forces;[38] the Bhat presumably gave advice on subjects
affecting Hindus of the lower classes; while the “Andaroo” (_i.e._
Andhiyaru, a Parsi priest) was required in disputes and cases involving
Parsis, whose customs in respect of marriage, divorce and inheritance had
not at this date been codified and given the force of law.
The Regulation of 1812 effected little or no improvement in the state of
the public security. Gangs of criminals burned ships in Bombay waters
to defraud the insurance-companies; robberies by armed gangs occurred
frequently in all parts of the Island;[39] and every householder of
consequence was compelled to employ private watchmen, the fore-runners
of the modern Ramosi and Bhaya, who were often in collusion with the
bad characters of the more disreputable quarters of the Town.[40] Even
Colaba, which contained few dwellings, was described in 1827 as the
resort of thieves.[41] The executive head of the force at this date was
Mr. Richard Goodwin, who succeeded the unfortunate Briscoe in 1811 and
served until 1816, when apparently he was appointed Senior Magistrate of
Police, with Mr. W. Erskine as his Junior.
The proceedings of both the magistrates and the police were regarded with
a jaundiced eye by the Recorder’s Court, and Sir Edward West, who filled
the appointment, first of Recorder and then of Chief Justice, from 1822
to 1828, animadverted severely in 1825 upon the illegalities perpetrated
by the magisterial courts, presided over at that date by Messrs. J. Snow
and W. Erskine[42]. His successor in the Supreme Court,[43] Sir J. P.
Grant, passed equally severe strictures upon the police administration
at the opening of the Quarter Sessions in 1828.
“The calendar is a heavy one. Several of the crimes betoken
a contempt of public justice almost incredible and a state
of morals inconsistent with any degree of public prosperity.
Criminals have not only escaped, but seem never to have been
placed in jeopardy. The result is a general alarm among native
inhabitants. We are told that you are living under the laws of
England. The only answer is that it is impossible. What has
been administered till within a few years back has not been the
law of England, nor has it been administered in the spirit of
the law of England; else it would have been felt in the ready
and active support the people would have given to the law and
its officers, and in the confidence people would have reposed
in its efficacy for their protection.”[44]
The punishments inflicted at this date were on the whole almost as
barbarous as those in vogue in earlier days. In 1799, for example, we
read of a Borah, Ismail Sheikh, being hanged for theft: in 1804 a woman
was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for perjury, during which
period she was to stand once a year, on the first day of the October
Sessions, in the pillory in front of the Court House (afterwards the
Great Western Hotel), with labels on her breast and back describing her
crime: and in the same year one Harjivan was sentenced to be executed
and hung in chains, presumably on Cross Island (_Chinal Tekri_), where
the bodies of malefactors were usually exposed at this epoch. One James
Pennico, who was convicted of theft in 1804, escaped lightly with three
months’ imprisonment and a public whipping at the cart’s tail from Apollo
Gate to Bazaar Gate; in 1806 a man who stole a watch was sentenced to two
years’ labour in the Bombay Docks.[45] The public pillory and flogging
were punishments constantly inflicted during the early years of the
nineteenth century. The pillory, which was in charge of the Deputy of
Police, was located on the Esplanade in the neighbourhood of the site now
occupied by the Municipal Offices. The last instance of its use occurred
in 1834, when two Hindus were fastened in it by sentence of the Supreme
Court and were pelted by boys for about an hour with a mixture composed
of red earth, cowdung, decayed fruits and bad eggs. At intervals their
faces were washed by two low-caste Hindus, and the pelting of filth
was then resumed to the sound of a fanfaronade of horns blown by the
Bhandaris attached to the Court.[46] Meanwhile the English doctrine of
the equality of all men before the law was gradually being established,
though the earliest instance of a Brahman being executed for a crime
of violence did not occur until 1846. The case caused considerable
excitement among orthodox Hindus, whose views were based wholly upon the
laws of Manu.[47]
The early “thirties” were remarkable for much crime and for a serious
public disturbance, the Parsi-Hindu riots, which broke out in July,
1832, in consequence of a Government order for the destruction of
pariah-dogs, which at this date infested every part of the Island. Two
European constables, stimulated by the reward of eight annas for every
dog destroyed, were killing one in the proximity of a house, when they
were attacked and severely handled by a mob composed of Parsis and Hindus
of several sects. On the following day all the shops in the Town were
closed, and a mob of about 300 roughs commenced to intimidate all persons
who attempted to carry out their daily business. The bazar was deserted;
and the mob forcibly destroyed the provisions intended for the Queen’s
Royals, who were on duty in the Castle, and stopped all supplies of food
and water for the residents of Colaba and the shipping in the harbour. As
the mob continued to gather strength, Mr. de Vitré, the Senior Magistrate
of Police, called for assistance from the garrison, which quickly
quelled the disturbance.[48]
The Press of this date recorded constant cases of burglary and dacoity.
“The utmost anxiety and alarm prevail amongst the inhabitants of this
Island, especially those residing in Girgaum, Mazagon, Byculla and the
neighbourhood, in consequence of the depredations and daring outrages
committed by gangs of robbers armed with swords, pistols and even
musquets, who, from the open and fearless manner in which they proceed
along the streets, sometimes carrying torches with them, seem to dread
neither opposition nor detection, and to defy the police.” It was even
said that sepoys of the 4th Regiment of Native Infantry, then stationed
in the Island, joined these gangs of marauders, and when two men of the
11th Regiment were arrested on suspicion by a magistrate, their comrades
stoned the magistrate’s party. “It would be far better that the Island
should be vacated altogether by the sepoy regiments,” said the _Courier_,
“than that it should be exposed repeatedly to these excesses.” Fifty men
of the Poona Auxiliary Force had to be brought down to aid the police and
to patrol the roads at night.[49]
According to Mrs. Postans, the police administration had improved and
robberies had become less frequent at the date of her visit, 1838.
“The establishment of an efficient police force,” she writes, “is one
of the great modern improvements of the Presidency. Puggees (_Pagis_
_i.e._ professional trackers) are still retained for the protection of
property: but the highways and bazaars are now orderly and quiet, and
robberies much less frequent.”[50] The authoress admitted, however, that
the Esplanade—particularly the portion of it occupied by the tents of
military cadets—was the resort of “a clique of dexterous plunderers,” who
during the night used to cast long hooks into the tents and so withdraw
all the loose articles and personal effects within reach.[51] The
prevalence of more serious crime is indicated by her remarks about the
Bhandari toddy-drawers:—
“It appears that in many cases of crime brought to the notice
of the Bombay magistracy, evidence which has condemned the
accused has been elicited from a Bundarrie, often sole witness
of the culprit’s guilt. Murderers, availing themselves of the
last twilight ray to decoy their victims to the closest depths
of the palmy woods and there robbing them of the few gold or
silver ornaments they might possess, have little thought of the
watchful toddy-drawer, in his lofty and shaded eyry.”[52]
That the improvement was not very marked is also proved by the fact
that in 1839, the year after Mrs. Postans’ visit, the Bench of Justices
increased their contribution to Government for police charges to Rs.
10,000, the additional cost being declared necessary owing to the rapid
expansion of the occupied urban area, and to the grave inadequacy of
the force for coping with crime. So far as watch and ward duties were
concerned, the police must have welcomed the first lighting of the
streets with oil-lamps in 1843. Ten years later there were said to
be 50 lamps in existence, which were lighted from dusk to midnight,
and the number continued to increase until October, 1865, when the
first gas-lamps were lighted in the Esplanade and Bhendy Bazar. On the
other hand drunkenness was a fruitful source of crime, and the number
of country liquor-shops was practically unlimited. “On a moderate
computation” wrote Mrs. Postans “every sixth shop advertises the sale of
toddy.” With such facilities for intoxication, crime was scarcely likely
to decrease.
But other and deeper reasons existed for the unsatisfactory state of the
public peace and security. Throughout the whole of the period from 1800
to 1850, and in a milder form till the establishment of the High Court in
1861, there was constant friction, occasionally of an acute character,
between the Supreme Court and the Company’s government and officials.
Moreover, the original intention of the Crown that the Supreme Court
should act as a salutary check upon the Company’s administration was
frustrated by several periods of interregnum between 1828 and 1855, the
Court being represented frequently by only one Judge and on one occasion
being entirely closed owing to the absence of judges. This antagonism
between the highest judicial tribunal and the executive authority could
not fail to react unfavourably on the subordinate machinery of the
administration, and coupled with inadequacy of numbers, insufficiency of
pay, and a general lack of integrity in the Police force itself, may be
held to have been largely responsible for the comparative freedom enjoyed
by wrong-doers and their manifest contempt for authority.
Contemporary records indicate that the Police Office at this period
(1800-1850) was located in the Fort; the court of the Senior Magistrate
of Police was housed in a building in Forbes Street, and the court of the
Second Magistrate in a house in Mazagon. The powers of both Magistrates
were limited, and all cases involving sentences of more than six months’
imprisonment, or affecting property valued at more than Rs. 50, had to
be sent to the Court of Petty Sessions or committed to the Recorder’s,
subsequently the Supreme Court. The Court of Petty Sessions was composed
of the two Magistrates of Police and a Justice of the Peace (the
Superintendent-General of Sir J. Mackintosh’s draft Regulation), and sat
every Monday morning at 10 a.m. at the Police Office in the Fort. The
constitution of this Court was afterwards amended by Rule, Ordinance and
Regulation 1 of 1834, which, though not registered in the Supreme Court
as required by Act XLVII, Geo. III, was subsequently legalized by India
Act VII of 1836. By that Ordinance the Court was composed of not less
than three Justices of the Peace, one of whom was a Magistrate of Police,
the second was a European, and the third was a Native of India, not born
of European parents. It remained in existence, with extended powers,
until the year 1877, when, together with three Magistrates of Police, it
was superseded by the Presidency Magistrates Act.
A word may here be said on the subject of the well-known uniform of the
Bombay constabulary, the bright yellow cap and the dark blue tunic and
knickers, which once caused a wag to style the Bombay police-sepoy “the
empty black bottle with the yellow seal.” The origin of the uniform is
obscure; but it was certainly in use in 1838, for Mrs. Postans describes
the dress of the men as “a dark blue coat, black belt, and yellow
turban.”[53] An illustration in _The Adventures of Qui-Hi_, entitled “A
Night in Dongri,” shows that the uniform was worn at a still earlier
date. In the background of the picture two persons are obviously having
an altercation with a police-constable, and the latter is depicted
wearing the flat yellow cap and blue uniform familiar to every modern
resident of Bombay. The dress of the constabulary must therefore have
been adopted at some date prior to 1816, and it is probably a legitimate
inference that it dates back to the reorganization of 1812, and was
possibly adapted from an older dress worn at the end of the eighteenth
century. In any case the distinctive features of the dress of the Bombay
police-constable of to-day are well over one hundred years old.
[Illustration: Police Constable
Bombay City]
When Thomas Holloway relinquished the office of High Constable
in 1829, his place was taken by one José Antonio, presumably a
Portuguese Eurasian, who had been serving as Constable to the Court of
Petty Sessions. José Antonio seems to have performed the duties of
executive police officer until 1835, when Captain Shortt was appointed
“Superintendent of Police and Surveyor etc. etc.” Between 1829 and 1855
the following officials were responsible for the police administration of
Bombay:—
--------+----------------+-----------------+------------------
Period | | | Constable
of | Senior | Junior | or
Office | Magistrate | Magistrate | Supdt. of Police
--------+----------------+-----------------+------------------
1829-33 | J. D. de Vitré | H. Gray | José Antonio.
1834 | J. Warden | Do. | Do.
| | +------------------
| | | Supdt. of Police
| | +------------------
1835-39 | J. Warden | H. Willis | Capt. Shortt
1840 | J. Warden | E. F. Danvers | Capt. Burrows
1841-45 | P. W. Le Geyt | Do. | Do.
1846 | G. L. Farrant | Do. | Capt. W. Curtis
1847-48 | G. Grant | Do. | Do.
1849 | Do. | Do. | Capt. E. Baynes
1850-51 | A. Spens | Do. | Do.
1852-53 | Do. | L. C. C. Rivett | Do.
1854-55 | A. K. Corfield | T. Thornton | Do.
--------+----------------+-----------------+------------------
It will be apparent from this list that from 1835 to 1855 the executive
control of the Police force was entrusted to a series of junior officers
belonging to the Company’s military forces, who probably possessed little
or no aptitude for police work, were poorly paid for their services,
and had no real encouragement to make their mark in civil employ.
Consequently, despite increased expenditure on the force, these military
Superintendents of Police secured very little control over the criminal
classes, and effected no real improvement in the _morale_ of their
subordinates. In 1844, for example, a succession of daring robberies was
carried out in the Harbour by gangs of criminals, who sailed round in
boats from Back Bay. The most notorious of them was known as the Bandar
Gang[54]; and their unchecked excesses led to the formation of a separate
floating police-force under the control of a Deputy Superintendent on Rs.
500 a month. House-breaking was of daily occurrence in Colaba, Sonapur,
Kalbadevi and Girgaum,[55] and constant complaints of dishonesty among
the European constables and of the gross inefficiency of the native rank
and file were made to the authorities by both public bodies and private
residents.[56] Corruption was prevalent in all ranks of the force,
and most of the subordinate officers, both European and Indian, were
in secret collusion with agents and go-betweens, some of them members
of the higher Hindu castes, who assisted their acts of extortion and
blackmail and shared with them the proceeds of their venality. Bands of
ruffians infested the thoroughfares and lanes of the native city, and no
respectable resident dared venture unprotected into the streets after
nightfall.
The period immediately preceding the year of the Mutiny was also
remarkable for two serious breaches of the public peace. The earlier
occurred at Mahim in 1850, on the last day of the Muharram festival, in
consequence of a dispute between two factions of the Khoja community,
and resulted in the murder of three men and the wounding of several
others.[57] The later riots broke out in October, 1851, between the
Parsis and Muhammadans, in consequence of a very indiscreet article on
the Muhammadan religion which was published in the _Gujarati_, a Parsi
newspaper. The Muhammadans, incensed at the statements made about the
Prophet, gathered at the Jama Masjid on October 17th in very large
numbers, and after disabling a small police patrol, stationed there to
keep the peace, commenced attacking the Parsis and destroying their
property. The public-conveyance stables at Paidhoni, which at that date
belonged to Parsis, were wrecked, liquor-shops were broken open and
rifled, shops and private houses were pillaged. Captain Baynes, the
Superintendent of Police, and Mr. Spens, the Senior Magistrate, managed
with a strong force to disperse the main body of rioters, capturing
eighty-five of them: but towards evening, as there were signs of a fresh
outbreak and the neighbourhood of Bhendy Bazaar was practically in a
state of siege, the garrison-troops were marched down to Mumbadevi and
thence distributed in pickets throughout the area of disturbance. This
action finally quelled the rioting, and the annual Muharram festival,
which commenced ten days later, passed off without any untoward
incident.[58]
In the year 1855 the post of Senior Magistrate was held by Mr. Corfield,
Messrs. T. Thornton and N. W. Oliver being respectively Junior and Third
Magistrates. In that year the public outcry against the police had become
so great, and the general insecurity had been reflected in so constant
a series of crimes against person and property, that Lord Elphinstone’s
government determined to institute a searching enquiry into the whole
subject. With this object they appointed to the immediate command of
the force in 1856 Mr. Charles Forjett, who was serving at the moment as
Deputy Superintendent. Through his energy and activity, they were able
to satisfy themselves fully of the prevalence of wholesale corruption
in the force. Drastic executive action was at once taken; and this was
followed by the drafting and promulgation of Act XIII of 1856 for the
future constitution and regulation of the Police Force. At the same time
Mr. Corfield was succeeded as Senior Magistrate by Mr. W. Crawford. The
credit for the introduction of the reforms and for the restoration of
public confidence belongs wholly to Charles Forjett, whose successful
administration during a period fraught with grave political dangers
deserves to be recorded in a separate chapter. His appointment in 1855
may be said to inaugurate the _régime_ of the professional police
official as distinguished from the purely military officer, and to mark
the final disappearance of an antiquated system, under which inefficiency
and crime flourished exceedingly. Henceforth a new standard of
administration was imposed, whereby the Bombay Police Force was enabled
to maintain the public peace effectively and also to acquire by degrees
a larger share of the confidence and co-operation of the general body of
citizens.[59]
CHAPTER III
MR. CHARLES FORJETT
1855-1863
Charles Forjett[60], who was appointed Superintendent of Police in 1855,
was of Eurasian (now styled Anglo-Indian) parentage and was brought up
in India. His father was an officer of the old Madras Fort Artillery
and had been wounded at the capture of Seringapatam in 1799. In _Our
Real Danger in India_, which he published in 1877, some few years after
his retirement, Forjett states that he served the Bombay Government for
forty years, first as a topographical surveyor and then successively
as official translator in Marathi and Hindustani, Sheriff, head of
the Poona police, subordinate and chief uncovenanted assistant judge,
superintendent of police in the Southern Maratha Country, and finally as
Commissioner of Police, Bombay. He first earned the favourable notice
of the Bombay Government by his reform and reorganization of the police
in the Belgaum division of the Southern Maratha Country; and there is
probably considerable justification for his own statement that the peace
and security of the southern districts of the Presidency during the
period of the Mutiny were chiefly due to his constructive work in this
direction.
He owed his later success as a police-officer to three main factors,
namely his great linguistic faculty, his wide knowledge of Indian
caste-customs and habits, and his masterly capacity for assuming native
disguises. Born and bred in India, he had learnt the vernaculars of the
Bombay Presidency in his youth, and had been familiar from his earliest
years with those subtle differences of belief and custom which the
average home-bred Englishman knows nothing about and can never master.
His black hair and sallow complexion—in brief, the strong “strain of the
country” in his blood—enabled him, when disguised, to pass among natives
of India as one of themselves. A story is told to illustrate his powers
of disguise. He once told the Governor, Lord Elphinstone, that in spite
of special orders prohibiting the entrance of any one and in defiance
of the strongest military cordon that His Excellency could muster, he
would effect his entrance to Government House, Parel, and appear at the
Governor’s bedside at 6 a.m. Lord Elphinstone challenged him to fulfil
his boast and took every precaution to prevent his ingress. Nevertheless
Forjett duly appeared the following morning in the Governor’s bedroom—in
the disguise of a _mehtar_ (sweeper). With these special qualifications
for police work were combined a strong will and great personal courage.
Forjett’s fame rests mainly upon his action during the Mutiny, and one is
apt to overlook the great but less sensational services which he rendered
to Government and the public in subduing lawlessness and crime in Bombay.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, he was serving as Assistant
or Deputy Superintendent of Police for some few months before Lord
Elphinstone placed him in control of the force, and during that period
he set himself to test the extent of the corruption which was believed
to prevail widely among all ranks. By means of his disguises he managed
to get into close touch with the men who were acting as go-betweens and
receivers of bribes, and even dined with one of them, a high-caste Hindu,
without betraying his identity. Through these men he also contrived on
various occasions to test the integrity of individual members of the
force. In consequence he was able in a very short time to expose the
whole system of corruption and to furnish Government with the evidence
they required for a drastic purging of the upper and lower grades.
That duty accomplished, he turned his attention to the criminal
classes.[61] “At a time” wrote the late Mr. K. N. Kabraji in his
_Reminiscences of Fifty Years Ago_, “when the public safety was quite
insecure, when the city was infested by desperate gangs of thieves and
other malefactors, Forjett had to use all his wonderful energy and acumen
to break their power and rid the city of their presence. He strengthened
and reformed the Police, which had been powerless to cope with them.
There was a notorious band of athletic ruffians in Bazar Gate Street,
consisting chiefly of Parsis. They used to occupy some rising ground,
from which they swooped down on their prey. Their daily acts of crime and
violence were committed with impunity, and their names were whispered by
mothers to hush their children to silence.
“I may here give a personal instance of the insecurity of the times. As
I was returning one night with my father from the Grant Road theatre
in a carriage, a ruffian prowling about in the dark at Falkland road
snatched my gold-embroidered cap and ran away with it. The road had been
newly built and ran through fields and waste land. Khetwadi, as its
name implies, was also an agricultural district. Grant road, Falkland
road and Khetwadi were then lonely places on the outskirts of the City,
and it is no wonder that wayfarers in these localities could never be
secure of purse or person. But on the Esplanade, under the very walls
of the Fort, occurred instances of violence and highway robbery, which
went practically unchecked. Not a few of the offenders were soldiers.
They used to lie in wait for a likely carriage with a rope thrown across
the road, so that the horse stumbled and fell, and then they rifled the
occupants of the carriage at their leisure. It was Mr. Forjett, whose
vigilance and activity brought all this crying scandal to an end.”[62]
The rapid change for the better which followed Forjett’s appointment to
the office of Superintendent is illustrated by the fact that whereas
in 1855 only 23 per cent of property stolen was recovered, in 1856 the
percentage had risen to 59. Mr. W. Crawford, “Senior Magistrate of
Police and Commissioner of Police”, in his annual return of crime for
the year 1859 remarked that “the total continued absence of gang and
highway robbery is most satisfactory”, and drew pointed attention to the
efficiency of the “executive branch of the police” under Mr. Forjett.[63]
In the following year, 1860, there were only three cases of burglary,
and although the value of property stolen amounted to Rs. 187,000, the
police managed to recover property worth Rs. 73,000. Serious offences
against the person also seem to have decreased in number during Forjett’s
_régime_. The Senior Magistrate observed with satisfaction that “the
debasing spectacle of a public execution was not called for” during
the year 1859; and such records as still exist of the later years of
Forjett’s administration point to the same conclusion.[64]
It must not be assumed, however, that this period lacked _causes
célèbres_. A brief reference to a few of the more important cases will
serve to show the varied character of the enquiries carried out by the
Police. In 1860 a European seaman, the chief mate of the _Lady Canning_,
was arraigned before the Supreme Court for an attempt to administer
poison to the Master and three others belonging to the vessel. The chief
witness for the prosecution, however, though bound by recognizances to
appear at the trial, sailed from Bombay before the proceedings commenced
and could not be brought back. The prisoner was therefore acquitted. In
the same year a Bene-Israel and two Hindus were convicted of piracy at
the Sessions and sentenced to seven years’ transportation, for having
plundered a vessel at anchor off Alibag of ten thousand rupees in silver.
In 1861 a Parsi contractor was committed for trial on a charge of
manslaughter. He was in charge of the work of digging foundations for a
new cotton-spinning mill in Tardeo (probably one of Sir Dinshaw Petit’s
mills), when an accident occurred in which five men lost their lives.
The contractor was held to have shown a culpable lack of caution; but
the Grand Jury threw out the bill against him, and further action was
abandoned. A more famous case in the same year was the Bhattia Conspiracy
Trial, connected with the famous Maharaja Libel Case of 1862, in which
Gokuldas Liladhar and eight other Bhattias were accused of conspiracy
to obstruct and defeat the course of justice, by intimidating witnesses
and preventing them from giving evidence in the libel-suit brought by
Jadunathji Brijratanji Maharaj against Karsondas Mulji and Nanabhai
Ranina, editor and printer respectively of the _Satya Prakash_.[65]
Forjett and one of his European constables, George Gahagan, gave evidence
before the Supreme Court of the meeting of the conspirators. The accused
were found guilty, and Sir Joseph Arnould sentenced the two leading
members of the conspiracy to a fine of Rs. 1000 apiece, and the rest to
a fine of Rs. 500 each. There was considerable disturbance in Court when
these sentences were pronounced.
Forjett served as Superintendent of Police until the end of 1863 or the
early part of 1864, with a period of leave to Europe in 1860, during
which his work was carried on by Mr. Dunlop, Deputy Superintendent in
charge of the Harbour or Water Police.[66] In addition to his duties
as head of “the executive police,” he was a member of the old Board of
Conservancy (1845-1858), and later one of the triumvirate of Municipal
Commissioners, established by Act XXV of 1858, which was responsible for
the entire conservancy and improvement of the town of Bombay until its
supersession in 1865 by a full-time Municipal Commissioner and the body
corporate of the Justices. It was in this capacity that Forjett in 1863
conceived and inaugurated the project of converting the old dirty and
dusty Cotton Green into what later generations know as the Elphinstone
Circle. The scheme was warmly supported in turn by Lord Elphinstone
and Sir Bartle Frere. The Municipal Commissioners bought up the whole
site and resold it at a considerable profit in building-lots to English
business firms; and by the end of 1865, two years after Forjett had
proposed the scheme, the Elphinstone Circle was practically completed and
ready for occupation.[67]
In addition to regular police duties, the Superintendent of Police at
this date was also in charge of the Fire Brigade—an arrangement which
lasted until 1888, and which accounts for the fact that an annual return
of fires signed by Forjett and his successor formed a regular feature of
the annual crime return submitted to Government by the Senior Magistrate
of Police. The officers and men of the brigade were members of the
regular police force, the European officers performing both police and
fire-brigade duties and the Indian ranks being restricted to fire-duty
only.[68]
During Mr. Forjett’s tenure of office, the post of Senior Magistrate was
held by Mr. W. Crawford, between whom and the Superintendent of Police
the most amicable relations existed. The position of both officials was
considerably strengthened by the passing of Act XLVIII of 1860, amending
Act XIII of 1856, which gave the police wider powers for the regulation
and prevention of nuisances, and enabled the magistracy to deal promptly
and effectively with offences to which the old Act of 1856 did not
extend.[69]
The period of the Mutiny (1857) was fraught with anxiety for the English
residents of Bombay. Between May and September rumours and hints of
the probability of a rising of the native population were constantly
disseminated, and more than one Indian of standing narrowly escaped
arrest for treason as the result of false complaints laid before the
authorities by interested parties. Among those thus secretly impeached
was the famous millionaire, Mr. Jagannath Shankarshet (1804-65), who
might well have succumbed to the attacks of his accusers, had the
Governor, Lord Elphinstone, been less calm, circumspect and resolute.
Jagannath’s guilt was firmly believed in by several influential
Englishmen, who brought their views to the notice of the Governor. He
instructed Forjett to investigate the matter; and the latter was able to
prove that the charges were wholly without foundation.[70] The belief
in Jagannath’s treasonable dealings with the mutineers in Bengal may
perhaps have resulted from action taken by Forjett immediately after the
outbreak of the Mutiny. In the garden of Jagannath Shankarshet’s mansion
was a large rest-house or _dharamshala_ intended for the accommodation of
wandering Brahman mendicants, who during the day begged food and alms in
the town. _Sanyasis_ and _Bhikshuks_ from all parts of India visited this
rest-house, bringing all kinds of information of events in Bengal and
the upper Provinces: and Forjett lost no time in placing an intelligent
up-country Brahman, disguised as a mendicant, on detective duty in the
_dharamshala_. It is quite possible that this plan may have been partly
responsible for the rumour that Jagannath was in collusion with the
infamous Nana Saheb. On the other hand the detective must have supplied
Forjett with much of the evidence which enabled him to disprove the Hindu
millionaire’s complicity in the Sepoy rebellion.[71]
At this date the military forces in Bombay comprised three native
regiments and one British force of 400 men under the command of Brigadier
Shortt. The native troops were implicitly trusted by their officers,
and the chief danger apprehended by the Bombay Government was from the
Muhammadan population of the city, which numbered about 150,000. Forjett
from the first combated this view and wrote a special letter to the
Governor’s Private Secretary, warning him that the main danger was from
the troops. His own inquiries had convinced him that the townspeople
would not rise unless the native regiments gave them the lead, and that
the latter were planning mutiny. Much to the disgust of General Shortt,
he made no secret of his views, declaring that the sepoys were the real
potential source of disturbance and danger. Forjett’s own force consisted
of 60 European police and a number of Indian constables; but on the
fidelity of the latter he could not implicitly rely. Consequently, after
news reached Bombay of the disasters at Cawnpore and other centres, he
obtained Lord Elphinstone’s special permission to enrol a body of 50
European mounted police.[72]
Meanwhile the Muharram, which was always an occasion of anxiety and
frequently of disturbance, was drawing near. The plans made by the
Government for maintaining order involved the division of the European
troops and police into small parties, which were posted in various
parts of the town.[73] Forjett disapproved wholly of this arrangement,
as no considerable body of European troops or police would be at hand
to quell a mutiny of the sepoys, which was certain to break out in the
neighbourhood of their barracks. He was naturally not empowered to revise
the arrangement of the military forces; but he definitely informed Lord
Elphinstone that he felt bound to disobey the orders for the distribution
of the police. “It is a very risky thing”, said the Governor, “to disobey
orders; but I am sure you will do nothing rash.”[74]
Despite the risk, Forjett disobeyed the orders and concentrated all his
efforts on outwitting the plotters. He summoned a meeting of the leading
Muhammadans and addressed them in very strong terms on the subject of
fomenting disorder—a step which earned Lord Elphinstone’s personal
commendation. Then, night after night, both before and during the
celebration of the festival, he wandered about the city in disguise, and
whenever he heard anyone speaking of the mutineers’ successes in other
parts of India in anything like a tone of exultation, he arrested him on
the spot. A whistle brought up three or more of his detective police, who
took charge of the culprit and marched him off to the lock-up. The bad
characters of the town were so much alarmed by these mysterious arrests,
which seemed to indicate that the authorities knew all that was afoot,
that they relinquished their plans for an outbreak. In his dealings with
the _badmash_ element, Forjett received valuable assistance from the Kazi
of Bombay, from a Muhammadan Subehdar of police, and from an Arab with
whom he used, when disguised, to visit mosques, coffee-shops, and other
places of popular resort.[75]
The Muharram would have ended peacefully but for the stupidity of a
drunken Christian drummer, belonging to one of the native regiments, who
towards the end of the festival insulted a religious procession of Hindus
by knocking down the idol which they were escorting. He was at once
arrested and locked up. The men of his regiment, incensed at the action
of the police, whom they detested on account of Forjett’s known distrust
of themselves, hurried to the lock-up, released the drummer and carried
him off, together with two police-guards, to their lines. An English
constable and four Indian police-sepoys, who went to demand the surrender
of the drummer and the release of their two comrades, were resisted
by force. A struggle ensued, and the police had to fight their way
out, leaving two of their number seriously wounded. The excitement was
intense, and the sepoys of the native regiments were bent upon breaking
out of their lines. On receiving news of the disturbance, Forjett
galloped to the scene, leaving orders for his assistant, Mr. Edginton,
and the European police to follow him. He found the native troops trying
to force their way out of the lines, and their officers with drawn swords
endeavouring to hold them back. At the sight of Forjett the anger of the
men rose to white heat. “For God’s sake Mr. Forjett,” cried the officers,
“go away”. “If your men are bent on mischief” was the reply, “the sooner
it is over the better.” The sepoys hesitated, while Forjett sat on his
horse confronting them. A minute or two later Mr. Edginton and fifty-four
European police rode up; and Forjett cried, “Throw open the gates. I
am ready for them.” The native troops were unprepared for this prompt
action, and judging discretion to be the better part of valour, remained
in their lines and gradually recovered their senses.[76]
But the trouble, though scotched, was not killed. A few days later
Forjett erected a gibbet in the compound of the Police Office, summoned
the chief citizens whom he knew to be disaffected, and, pointing to the
gibbet, warned them that on the slightest sign that they meditated an
outbreak, they would be seized and hanged. This forcible demonstration
had the desired effect. Forjett had quashed all chance of a rising in
the bazar. But the danger from the native troops remained. Forjett
redoubled his detective activities and soon discovered that a number of
them were regularly holding secret meetings in the house of one Ganga
Prasad, who had gained the confidence of the sepoys in the triple rôle
of priest, devotee and physician.[77] Forjett had this man arrested and
induced him to confess all he knew. The next night he went in disguise
to the house in Sonapur (Dhobi Talao) and listened to the sepoys’
conversation. He learnt that they intended to mutiny during the Hindu
festival of Divali in October, pillage the city, and then escape from
the Island. He reported the facts at once to the military officers, who
received them with incredulity. But Forjett eventually persuaded Major
Barrow, the commandant of one of the regiments, to accompany him in
disguise to the house and hear the details of the plot from a convenient
hiding-place. Major Barrow was convinced and reported the facts to
General Shortt, who exclaimed:—“Mr. Forjett has caught us at last!”
Court-martials were promptly held: the two ringleaders—a native officer
of the Marine Battalion and a private of the 10th N. I.—were blown from
guns on the Esplanade, and six of their accomplices were transported
for life. According to James Douglas, thirty men deserved the same fate
as the ringleaders, but owed their reprieve to the clemency of Lord
Elphinstone.[78]
Thus by his energy, courage and detective ability did Forjett save Bombay
from a mutiny of the garrison. His services had more than local effect,
for in Lord Elphinstone’s opinion, if the Mutiny in Bombay had been
successful, nothing could have saved Hyderabad, Poona and the rest of the
Presidency, and after that “Madras was sure to go too.”[79] The formal
thanks of the Bombay Government were conveyed to Forjett in a letter from
the Secretary, Judicial Department, No. 1681 of May 23rd, 1859, nearly
six months after the Queen’s Proclamation announcing the end of the East
India Company’s rule. The words of the letter were as follows:—
“The Right Honourable the Governor in Council avails himself of this
opportunity of expressing his sense of the very valuable services
rendered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,[80] Mr. Forjett, in
the detection of the plot in Bombay in the autumn of 1857. His duties
demanded great courage, great acuteness, and great judgment, all of which
qualities were conspicuously displayed by Mr. Forjett at that trying
period.”
The scars left by the Mutiny in India were barely healed, when Bombay
entered upon that extraordinary era of prosperity, engendered by the
outbreak of the American Civil war and the consequent stoppage of
the American cotton-supply, which gave her in five years 81 millions
sterling more than she had regarded in previous years as a fair price
for her cotton, and which eventually led, after a period of great
inflation, to the financial disasters of 1865. An enormous influx of
population took place; the occupied area rapidly expanded; and the
burden thrown upon the police force, which was numerically inadequate,
must have been excessive. It redounds to Forjett’s credit that in spite
of all difficulties, and in conjunction with his duties as a Municipal
Commissioner in a time of feverish urban progress, he contrived to keep
crime within reasonable bounds, and put an end finally to the hordes of
ruffians who infested the skirts of the town and nightly lay in wait for
passers-by.[81]
The Indian merchants of Bombay were not slow to recognise his services
to the city, and showed their gratitude for the security which he
had afforded to them by presenting him in 1859 with an address, and
subscribing at the same time “a sum of upwards of £1300 sterling for the
purpose of offering to him a more enduring token of their esteem.”[82]
That was not all. After his retirement to England early in 1864, the
Indian cotton-merchants sent him a purse of £1500, “in token of their
strong gratitude for one whose almost despotic powers and zealous energy
had so quelled the explosive forces of native society that they seem to
have become permanently subdued:” while the Back Bay Reclamation Company,
which was formed at the height of the share mania, allotted him five
shares in his absence, and when the price reached a high point, sold them
and sent him the proceeds in the form of a draft for £13,580.[83] These
large sums, presented to Forjett after his final departure from India,
form a striking testimony to the value of his work as a police-officer
and to the great impression left by his personality upon Indians of all
classes in Bombay.
Forjett’s services at the time of the Mutiny were separately
acknowledged. From the public he received various addresses and a
purse of £3,850, subscribed by both English and Indian residents. The
Government, whose eulogy of his action has already been quoted, granted
him an extra pension and also bestowed a commission in the Army upon his
son, F. H. Forjett, who was in command of one of the native regiments in
Bombay at the time of the great Hindu-Muhammadan riots of 1893.[84] Yet
Forjett is said to have regarded himself as slighted by Government in not
having received from them any decoration.[85] It certainly seems curious
that so admirable a public servant should not have been rewarded with a
Knighthood or admitted to one of the Orders of Chivalry. But in Forjett’s
day the Government bestowed decorations very sparingly, and it may have
been thought that this faithful servant of the vanished East India
Company was sufficiently recompensed by the grant of a commission to his
son and by permission to accept the handsome pecuniary rewards offered to
him by a grateful urban population.
After his retirement, Forjett purchased a property near Hughenden,
which he called “Cowasjee Jehangir Hall” after the well-known Parsi
philanthropist, who gave so largely to educational and charitable
institutions in Western India.[86] In 1877 he published _Our Real
Danger in India_, in which he sought to explain the lesson of his own
experience during the Mutiny and gave an account of the events of that
period in Bombay. He died in London on January 27th 1890, but at what
age is unknown, as the date of his birth has never been satisfactorily
determined. He can hardly have been less than thirty-five years of age
when he was appointed Superintendent of the Bombay Police in 1855, and
was possibly older. Sir Lees Knowles of Westwood, Pendlebury, met him in
1886, and describes him at that date as “a man of middle height, with
a very pale olive complexion, and highly nervous: he could not without
shaking raise a glass of water to his lips.”[87] Forjett’s pension was
paid in rupees, and after the more or less permanent decline in the
exchange-value of the rupee, he requested the British Government on more
than one occasion to permit him to draw his pension in sterling, but
failed to obtain sanction to his request.
Here it is well to take leave of Charles Forjett, the first efficient
chief that the Bombay Police ever had. One hesitates to imagine what
might have happened in Bombay, if a man of less courage and ability had
been in charge of the force in 1857: and looking back upon all that
he achieved during his nine years of office, one realizes why Lord
Elphinstone trusted him so implicitly, and why the Indian and European
public regarded him with so much respect and admiration. His name still
lives in Forjett Street, a thoroughfare of minor importance leading from
Cumballa hill into the mill-area of Tardeo. He himself will live for
ever in the history of the “First City in India” as the man who raised
the whole tone of police administration, brought the criminal classes of
Bombay for the first time under stern control, and saved the city from
the horrors and excesses which must inevitably have attended a rebellion
of the native garrison.
CHAPTER IV
SIR FRANK SOUTER KT., C.S.I.
1864-1888
Forjett was succeeded in 1864 by Mr. Frank H. Souter, son of Captain
Souter of the 44th Regiment who was a prisoner in Afghanistan in 1842.
Mr. Souter had served as a volunteer against the rebels in the Nizam’s
dominions in 1850, and was appointed Superintendent of Police, Dharwar,
in 1854. During the Mutiny he captured the rebel chief of Nargund, for
which he received a sword of honour, and two years later (1859) was
engaged in suppressing the Bhil brigands of the northern Deccan. This
task he successfully completed by killing Bhagoji Naik, the notorious
Bhil outlaw, and capturing his chief followers, showing on several
occasions so much courage and resource that he was recommended for the
Victoria Cross. He thus had several years of distinguished service to his
credit before he assumed charge of the Bombay Police Force in 1864.
[Illustration: SIR FRANK SOUTER]
The appointment of Mr. Souter, who was awarded the C.S.I. in 1868 and
was knighted by H. R. H. the Prince of Wales in 1875, synchronized with
a thorough revision of the strength of the force. As already stated,
the period 1860-65 witnessed a phenomenal expansion of the town, in
consequence of the great profits derived from the sale of cotton during
the American Civil War. Much reclamation of land from the sea was carried
out, the mill-industry throve apace, the town spread northward with
amazing rapidity, and shoals of immigrants of all classes poured into
Bombay in the hope of making a fortune or securing a livelihood from the
many economic and industrial projects then floated. In the large army of
workers that invaded the Island there were naturally many persons of bad
character and shady antecedents, who soon found their level among the
criminal classes and helped to swell the crime-returns. It was obvious
at the date of Mr. Forjett’s retirement that the police-force had not
been augmented _pari passu_ with the growth of the population and the
expansion of the residential area, and the Census of 1864, carried
out by the Health Officer under the instruction of Sir Bartle Frere’s
government, proved beyond cavil that the force was quite inadequate to
deal with the population of 816,562 then recorded.
Accordingly in 1864 Colonel Bruce, Inspector-General of Police with
the Government of India, was despatched to Bombay to investigate local
conditions and make recommendations for the future constitution of the
force. His proposals, which were approved and adopted in 1865, were
briefly the following. The total force was to number 1456, as he was
“unable to perceive that the work could be done with fewer hands”,
divided under the following main heads:—
Land Police 1239
Police Guards for Government buildings 116
Harbour Police 101
----
Total 1456
Besides these, there were 84 police for the Government Dockyard, who had
existed for several years and were paid for by the Marine Department,
and a few miscellaneous police, who guarded municipal graveyards and
burning-grounds and were paid for by the Municipal Commissioners. Neither
these nor the Dock police were available for ordinary police work.
Excluding the Harbour police, who numbered 101, the police force proper
in 1865 was composed as follows:—
Superintendents 6
Inspectors 22
Sub-Inspectors 12
Jemadars 24
Havildars 62
Men 1216
Mounted Police 13[88]
These numbers were appreciably in excess of the total strength of the
force in Mr. Forjett’s time and placed the Bombay police on a level with
the forces maintained in the sister-towns of Calcutta and Madras.
The office of Commissioner of Police dates also from Colonel Bruce’s
reorganization of 1865. He proposed that the appointments of Police
Commissioner and Municipal Commissioner should be amalgamated: but
this suggestion was very wisely negatived by Government. The senior
officer of the police force was thenceforth made responsible solely
for the police administration of the city, with the title of Police
Commissioner, while under the new Municipal Act of 1865 the executive
power and responsibility in municipal matters were vested in a Municipal
Commissioner appointed for a term of three years. From this date,
therefore, the Commissioner of Police, though he still controlled the
fire-brigade and sat on the Municipal Corporation as an elected or
nominated member, ceased to exercise any official powers in regard to
conservancy, rating, lighting and the water-supply.
For the first thirteen years of Sir Frank Souter’s tenure of office,
the old system of Magistrates of Police and the Court of Petty Sessions
continued unaltered.[89] In 1866, for example, when Sir F. Souter took
furlough and Major Henderson was acting for him, the Senior Magistrate
was Mr. J. P. Bickersteth, with Messrs. F. L. Brown and Dosabhai Framji
Karaka as his colleagues. He was succeeded in turn by Mr. Barton, Mr.
John Connon, in whose memory the John Connon High School was founded, and
Mr. C. P. Cooper, who was in substantive charge of the office at the
time of the passing of the Presidency Magistrates Act IV of 1877. This
Act abolished the Magistrates of Police and the Court of Petty Sessions,
and invested the Presidency Magistrates, who succeeded them, with powers
to deal with all cases formerly committed to the Petty Sessions, and
with a large number of cases formerly triable only by the High Court.
Nevertheless the Chief Presidency Magistrate continued for a few years
longer to submit an annual report to Government on the state of crime in
Bombay, which contained _inter alia_ a few returns, and occasionally a
few remarks on undetected murder cases, by the Commissioner of Police.
These annual reports of the Senior Magistrate, and later the Chief
Presidency Magistrate, were doleful documents, consisting of a mass of
figures relative to various classes of crime, and unrelieved, except on
very rare occasions, by illuminating comment or interesting fact. The
reviews by Government of these returns were little better. Occasionally
an Under-Secretary would try to infuse life into the dry bones of the
crime-tables, and suggest new avenues of inquiry: but in the end the
figures, like the thorns of Holy Writ, sprang up and choked him, and he
had to content himself with echoing the uninspired deductions of the
magisterial bench. In 1883 the Bombay Government decreed the abolition
of these magisterial reports on the state of crime, and in the following
year Sir Frank Souter, as Commissioner of Police, submitted the first
annual report on the working of the Police in the Town and Island of
Bombay.[90] The change, though overdue, was none the less welcome, for
the Commissioner, with his fingers on the pulse of the city, was in a
position to supply more valuable information and lend a more human touch
to the report than was possible so long as his annual review of police
activity was confined to a list of fires and a table showing dismissals
and resignations from the force. The Chief Presidency Magistrate, with a
tenacity worthy of a better cause, continued to submit a return of crime
until 1886, when Government ordered its discontinuance. Since that date
the only annual report on police and crime has been furnished by the
Commissioner, who is accustomed to forward it for remarks to the Chief
Presidency Magistrate before submitting it to Government.
During the later years of Sir Frank Souter’s _régime_ the police force
was seriously undermanned. Colonel Bruce’s proposals had brought it
to approximately the right strength in 1865, but the city continued
to expand so rapidly that the numbers then deemed adequate no longer
sufficed for the purposes of watch and ward. In 1871 the force numbered
1473, of whom 285 were paid by Government and 1188 by the Municipality,
exclusive of 396 men who did duty on the railways. In the following
year the Senior Magistrate of Police, John Connon, remarked that “the
European Police Force, though now too much reduced, is upon the whole a
most respectable body of men, always ready for duty and capable of it.
I can conscientiously say as much of numbers of natives of different
ranks in the force.”[91] The reduction in numbers, to which he referred,
apparently lasted for several years, the total strength of the force
varying from 1402 in 1873 to 1408 in 1877. In 1879 it had decreased still
further to 1392 men, of whom 262 were classed as Government and 1130 as
municipal police (_i.e._ paid by the Municipal Corporation). In 1881
the number paid for by Government had risen to 324, but the number of
“municipal police” was less by 58 than in 1871. The subject was alluded
to by the Commissioner in his annual report of June 6th, 1885, and he
emphasized the fact that, despite minor increases during the previous
twenty years and in spite of a definite expansion of the scope and
character of police-work, he was actually in command of 101 men less than
in 1865.
[Illustration: Armed Police Jamadar
Bombay City]
In 1885 the Bombay Police Force was composed as follows:—
(_a_) _Land Police_
1 Commissioner of Police
1 Deputy Commissioner of Police
6 Superintendents
36 Officers on Rs. 100 per month and over
92 Officers on less than Rs. 100 per month
1020 Constables
(_b_) 98 Police guards for Government buildings
(_c_) _Harbour Police_
1 Superintendent
13 Subordinate Officers
87 Constables
(_d_) _Dockyard Police_
7 Subordinate Officers
77 Constables
(_e_) 5 Police-guards for distilleries
(_f_) _C. D. Act Police_
2 Subordinate Officers
10 Constables
(_g_) _Prince’s Dock Police_
6 Subordinate Officers
44 Constables
(_h_) 20 Constables at burning and burial grounds.
The total cost of this force, including rent, contingencies, allowances
and hospital expenses, was Rs. 475,297. The cost of the Land Police
was borne by Government, the Municipal Corporation giving a fixed
contribution towards it. The Corporation paid also for the constables
posted at the burning and burial grounds. Government bore the whole cost
of the Harbour Police, while the charges of the Prince’s Dock Police were
debited to the Port Trustees.
While the force numbered 101 less than in 1865, the population of Bombay
had increased from 645,000 in 1872 to 773,000 in 1881; while between
1872 and 1883 nearly 4000 new dwelling-houses had been erected and 6½
miles of new streets and roads had been thrown open to traffic. Again,
whereas in Calcutta the percentage of police to population was 1 to 227,
in Bombay the percentage was 1 to 506. In consequence the strain upon the
men was excessive. Most of them worked both by day and night and obtained
no proper rest: and this fact, coupled with the exiguous pay of Rs. 10
per month allotted to the lowest grade constable, injured recruitment and
obliged the Commissioner to accept candidates of less than the standard
height (5′ 6″) and chest-measurement. Sir Frank Souter also remarked that
only 110 officers and 297 men, out of the whole force, were able to read
and write, that no provision for their education existed, and that even
if it were provided, the men were so overworked that they would be unable
to take advantage of it. He urged the Government to sanction an immediate
increase of 200 men in the lower ranks and to abolish the lowest grade
of constable on Rs. 10 per month, on the ground that this was not a
living wage and compared unfavourably with the salaries obtainable in
private employ. The Bombay Government, while admitting the force of the
Commissioner’s arguments, declared that financial stringency prevented
their granting the whole increase required and therefore sanctioned the
cost of an additional 101 men, thus merely bringing the force up to the
number declared to be necessary twenty years before.
The total strength and cost of the force during the last four years of
Sir Frank Souter’s _régime_ were as follows:—
Year Number of all grades Annual Cost
1885 1521 Rs. 475,297
1886 1580 ” 493,116
1887 1612 ” 510,690
1888 1621 ” 505,135
The small increase of 100 men between 1885 and 1888 was absurdly
disproportionate to the extra burden of work entailed by the growth of
the mill-industry, by the growing demands of the public, and by the
activity of the legislature. Among the additional duties devolving on
the Bombay police, which came prominently to notice after 1865, were the
supervision of the weights and measures used by retail merchants and
the prosecution of those whose weights did not conform to the official
standard. In 1873, 112 shopkeepers were prosecuted for this offence
and all except six were convicted. A year later Government commented
unfavourably on the small number of prosecutions under the Arms Act and
instructed the Commissioner to exercise a much stricter supervision
over the importation and unlicensed sale of arms and ammunition. The
Contagious Diseases Act, which no longer exists, was also the source of
much extra work and fruitless trouble. In 1884 the Commissioner reported
that there were 1435 women on the register, and ten years later 1500.
“I regret to say,” he wrote in the course of a report submitted in the
former year, “that in the existing state of the law the efforts of the
Police to control contagious diseases are almost futile. Hundreds of
women, who are well known to be carrying on prostitution in the most
open manner, cannot be registered because Magistrates require evidence
which it is next to impossible to obtain.” He added that the working of
the Act involved a great deal of unnecessary expense, that the police
were unable to discharge their duties satisfactorily, and that unless
the hands of both the magistrates and the police were strengthened, it
would be wiser to abolish the Act altogether. This view eventually found
favour and, combined with strong pressure from other quarters, led to the
abolition of the Act in July, 1888. A special staff of two officers and
ten constables were released from an unpleasant task and were absorbed
into the regular police force.
In 1884 occurs the earliest reference by the Commissioner to a matter
which was destined to give him and his successors much additional work,
namely the Haj or annual Muhammadan pilgrimage to Mecca. The number
of pilgrims passing through Bombay had reached nearly 8,000, and had
necessitated the appointment in 1882 of a Protector of Pilgrims and a
regular system of passports. A Pilgrims Brokers’ Act was also under
consideration by the Indian legislature. Three years later, 1887, the
task of issuing passports for Jeddah and selling steamer-tickets was
entrusted to Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons; but the success of this
arrangement was discounted by the ignorance and helplessness of the
pilgrims themselves, who failed to make full use of the facilities
offered by the firm. The number of pilgrims passing annually through
Bombay was far less than during the early years of the twentieth century:
but their presence was nevertheless responsible for the building of one
_musafirkhana_ in Pakmodia street in 1871 and of another in Frere road
in 1884. The growth of the Haj traffic before the outbreak of the Great
War in 1914 added immensely to the volume of work annually devolving upon
the Police Commissioner, and acquired additional importance from the
political significance given to it by Indian Moslem agitators.
From time to time public interest was aroused during these years by
sensational crimes. The earliest occurred in 1866, when four Europeans
(3 Italians and an Austrian) murdered four Marwadis as they lay asleep
in a house in Khoja Street. The motive of the crime was robbery; and
the culprits were fortunately caught by the Deputy Commissioner, Mr.
Edginton, and some European and Indian police, who pursued them from
the scene of the crime. At the end of 1872 the Senior Magistrate of
Police received information that a Parsi solicitor of the High Court and
a Hindu accomplice had instigated a Fakir named Khaki Sha to kill one
Nicholas de Ga and his wife by secret means for a reward of Rs. 5000.
Similar information was also conveyed to Khan Bahadur Mir Akbar Ali, head
of the detective police. Mr. R. H. Vincent, who was then acting Deputy
Commissioner, Mir Akbar Ali, Mir Abdul Ali, Superintendent Mills and an
European inspector concealed themselves behind a bamboo partition-wall in
the Fakir’s house in Kamathipura and thus overheard details of the plot
against the de Gas. It transpired that Mrs. de Ga was entitled to certain
property, of which the Parsi solicitor and a Mrs. Pennell were executors;
and having mismanaged the property, the latter were anxious to obviate
all chance of inquiry by the interested parties into their misconduct.
The solicitor and his Hindu accomplice were both convicted. A curious
case occurred in 1874, when Mr. James Hall of the Survey Department was
accused of causing the death in Balasinor of three Indian troopers,
attached to that department, and was adjudged at his trial to be of
unsound mind. The murder of a European broker named Roonan by a European
Portuguese, de Britto, in 1877 caused some temporary excitement, as also
did a murder in the compound of H. H. the Aga Khan’s house in Mazagon,
perpetrated at a moment when most of the Khoja residents had gone to
Byculla railway station to receive the corpse of the late Aga Ali Shah.
The last, and in some ways most interesting, case happened in November,
1888, when a Pathan strangled his wife, with the help of a friend, in a
room in Pakmodia street. The two men placed the corpse of the woman in
a box, tied up in sacking, and took it with a mattress on a cart to the
neighbourhood of the Elphinstone Road railway station. There they left
the box and mattress in charge of a cooly, telling him to watch them
until they came back. They then walked into the city, where they sold the
woman’s jewellery and purchased tickets for Jeddah out of the proceeds.
A day or two later they sailed together for the Hedjaz. The cooly, after
waiting some time, took the box and mattress to his house, where they
lay until November 23rd, three weeks after the murder. By that date the
stench from the box was so overpowering that the cooly in alarm removed
them to a dry ditch in the vicinity, where they were discovered by the
police on November 24th. The woman’s body was naturally so decomposed
that identification was impossible. But by means of the box and the
clothes of the deceased, Mir Abdul Ali and his men managed to trace the
offenders, who were eventually arrested at Aden and brought back on
December 10th to stand their trial.
Among other _causes célèbres_ was the destruction of the _Aurora_ in
1870, the morning after she had left Bombay, in pursuance of a conspiracy
on the part of the master of the vessel and three other Europeans to
defraud the underwriters by means of false bills-of-lading. The vessel
was supposed to be laden with a heavy cargo of cotton which actually
was never shipped. All the culprits, of whom two were ship and freight
brokers in Bombay, were sentenced to long terms of penal servitude. Two
interesting examples of the manufacture of false evidence occurred in
1872. In one case seven persons were charged with causing one Kuvarji
Jetha to be stabbed by two men at Ahmedabad, in order that the fact of
the stabbing might be adduced in evidence against a third party, against
whom they bore a grudge; while in the second case three persons were
convicted of robbery at Surat on evidence which the Bombay Police proved
conclusively to have been manufactured by seven conspirators in Bombay.
Two remarkable cases of cheque-forgeries by Parsis on the National and
the Hong-Kong and Shanghai banks were committed to the Sessions in 1875.
The growth of intemperance was a noticeable feature of the period. In
1866-67, the Senior Magistrate, Mr. Barton, advocated more drastic
restrictions on the sale of liquor, and in 1871 the Bombay Government
commented upon the excessive prevalence of drinking, which was the
immediate cause of twenty-one deaths in that year. In 1876 drunkenness
was reported to have increased greatly among Indian women of the lower
classes;[92] a further increase was reported in 1884, when 4,800 persons,
including 224 Europeans, were charged with this offence; and in 1886
the total number of cases had risen to nearly 7,000. While the growth
of a floating European population, connected with the harbour and
shipping, certainly contributed to swell the returns of intemperance,
the main causes underlying the increase were the rapid expansion of the
textile industry and the growth of the industrial population, which,
in the absence of facilities for decent recreation and in consequence
of scandalous housing-conditions, was prone to drown its discomforts
by resort to the nearest liquor-shop. Not a few of the problems, which
still confront the Bombay executive authorities, can be traced back to
this period when a large and important industry was suddenly developed
by the genius and capacity of a number of Indian merchants, and a huge
lower-class population, almost wholly illiterate and lacking moral
and physical stamina, was introduced into the restricted area of the
Island at a rate which defied all efforts to provide for its proper
accommodation.
The growth of routine police-work during these years is apparent from the
number of persons placed before the magisterial bench. Between 1874 and
1880 it increased from 21,500 to nearly 28,000, the exceptional number
of 33,000, recorded in 1879, being due to the presence of a large body
of immigrants, who had fled from the famine of the previous year in the
Deccan and remained in Bombay in the hope of improving their condition
by stealing. The volume of offences against property likewise expanded
and would probably have been greater, but for the chances of steady
employment afforded by the opening of new mills and the construction of
dock works. Among the most unsatisfactory features of crime recorded
during these years were the steady increase in the number of juvenile
offenders and the comparatively large number of cases in which children
were murdered for the sake of the gold and silver ornaments they were
wearing. As Sir Frank Souter remarked, it is practically impossible for
the State to provide an effective remedy for this evil, so long as Indian
parents persist in a practice which offers overwhelming temptation to
the criminal classes. The prosecution of persons for adultery, which is
an offence under the Indian Penal Code, was another noteworthy feature
of the crime records of the ’seventies. In 1872 nineteen, and in 1873
twenty-three offenders were prosecuted by the police for this offence,
and all of them were acquitted. The extreme difficulty in a country
like India of proving a criminal charge of this character led doubtless
to the abandonment of such prosecutions in all but the rarest cases. A
remarkable case of criminal breach of trust, in which no less than 51
separate charges were brought against a Parsi woman, who was convicted on
three counts, and a clever theft of silver bars and coin from the Mint
by some sepoys of the 10th Regiment N. I., owed their discovery to the
detective abilities of the police.
The criminality of Europeans was due to specific causes connected with
the growth of the port. As early as 1867 the prevalence of low freights
and the difficulty of obtaining employment afloat or ashore led to much
distress and crime among European seamen, and the Police were forced to
undertake the task of finding work for some of this floating population
and of shipping others to Europe. On the opening of the Suez Canal at
the end of 1869, the old sailing vessels, in which the trade of the port
had up to that date been carried on, yielded place to steamers, which
remained only a short time in harbour and discharged and took in cargoes
by steam-power. To this change in the shipping-arrangements was ascribed
the prosecution in 1871 in the magisterial courts of 812 refractory
sailors. A gradual improvement, however, took place in consequence of
“the facilities of communication afforded by the telegraph”, whereby
“the amount of tonnage required for merchandize to be exported from
Bombay to Europe can be regulated to a nicety. There are far fewer ships
in the harbour seeking freight, while the crews of the Canal steamers
being engaged for short periods and subject to only a brief detention
in the port, the causes which produced discontent are not so prevalent
as formerly.”[93] Most of the European offenders, as is still the case,
belonged to the sea-faring or military classes or to the fluctuating
population of vagrants, and it was their conduct, not that of the regular
European residents, which caused the proportion of offenders to the whole
European population to compare very unfavourably with the proportion in
other sects or communities. Much improvement of a permanent character
resulted from the opening of the Sailors’ Home by the Duke of Edinburgh
in 1876, while from 1888 the police were relieved of the duty of
prosecution in many cases by a decision of the magistracy that under the
Mercantile Marine Act the police should no longer arrest European seamen
summarily, but should leave the commanders of vessels to obtain process
from the courts against defaulting members of their crews.
Only on three occasions was the public peace seriously broken during Sir
Frank Souter’s tenure of office. The first disturbance occurred in 1872
during the Muharram festival—the annual Muhammadan celebration of the
deaths of Hasan and Husein, which up to the year 1912 offered an annual
menace to law and order. Writing of this festival in 1885, Sir Frank
Souter stated that it was always “a laborious and anxious time for the
police, as until recent years it was almost certain to be ushered in by
serious disturbances and often bloodshed, arising from the longstanding
and at one time bitter feud existing between the Sunni and Shia sects.
For many years it was found necessary to place a strong detachment of
troops in the City, where they remained during the last two or three
days of the Muharram, and it is only within the last few years that
the usual requisition at the commencement of the Muharram to hold a
party of military in readiness has been discontinued.” By the middle of
the ’eighties a better feeling existed between the two sects; but the
excitement during the festival was still intense and the congregation
in Bombay of Moslems from all parts of Asia rendered the work of the
police extremely arduous. Apparently in 1872 the sectarian antagonism
developed into open rioting, resulting in serious injury to about sixty
people, before Sir Frank Souter gained control of the situation.[94] This
outbreak was followed about a month later by a serious affray between two
factions of the Parsi community outside the entrance to the Towers of
Silence on Gibbs road. The police speedily put an end to the disturbance
and arrested fifty persons for rioting, all of whom were subsequently
acquitted by the High Court.[95]
These disturbances were trivial by comparison with the Parsi-Muhammadan
riots of February, 1874, which ensued upon an ill-timed and improper
attack upon the Prophet Muhammad, written and published by a Parsi in a
daily newspaper. Shortly after 10 a.m. on the morning of February 13th, a
mob of rough Muhammadans gathered outside the Jama Masjid, and after an
exhortation by the Mulla began attacking the houses of Parsi residents.
Two _agiaris_ (fire-temples) were broken open and desecrated by a band
of Sidis, Arabs and Pathans, who then commenced looting Parsi residences
and attacking any Parsi whom they met on the road. One of the worst
affrays occurred in Dhobi Talao. The Musalman burial-ground lies between
the Queen’s road and the Parsi quarter of that section, and an important
Parsi fire-temple stands on the Girgaum road, which cuts the section from
south to north. Alarmed at the approach of a large Muhammadan funeral
procession from the eastern side of the city, the Parsis threw stones
at the Muhammadans, who retaliated, and a free fight with bludgeons and
staves, in which many persons were injured, was carried on until the
police arrived in force. Much damage to person and property was also done
in Bhendy Bazar and the Khetwadi section.[96] On the following day the
attitude of the Muhammadans was so threatening that the leading Parsis
waited in a deputation on the Governor, Sir Philip Wodehouse, and begged
him to send military aid to the Police, who appeared unable to cope with
the situation. Sir Philip Wodehouse refused the request; and when, in
revenge for their losses some Parsis attacked a gang of Afghans near
the Dadysett Agiari in Hornby road, the Governor summoned the leading
Parsis and urged them to keep their co-religionists under better control.
The hostility of the two communities, however, defied all efforts at
conciliation, and in the end the troops of the garrison had to be called
in to assist in the restoration of order.[97] The police eventually
charged 106 persons with rioting, of whom 74 were convicted and sentenced
to varying periods of imprisonment. During the progress of the riot,
while the police were fully occupied in trying to restore order, the
criminal classes took advantage of the situation and disposed of a large
quantity of stolen property, which was never recovered.[98]
The Parsis were greatly dissatisfied with the attitude of the authorities
and subsequently submitted a memorial to the Secretary of State, begging
that an enquiry might be held into the rioting and blaming the police for
apathy and the Government for not at once sending military assistance.
The Governor’s refusal to call out the troops, until the police were on
the point of breaking down, was apparently due to his belief that his
powers in this direction were restricted. He was subsequently informed
by Lord Salisbury that extreme constitutional theories could not safely
be imported into India, and that therefore troops might legitimately be
used to render a riot impossible.[99] The Secretary of State to this
extent endorsed the views of the Parsi community, which felt that it had
not been adequately protected.
Both before and after the passing of the Presidency Magistrates Act IV
of 1877 the relations between the magistracy and the police were usually
harmonious, and the court-work of the latter was much facilitated by
the publication in February, 1881, of rules under that Act, designed
to secure uniformity of practice in the four magistrates’ courts and
the better distribution and conduct of business. The question of delay
caused by frequent adjournments to suit the convenience of barristers
and pleaders, was also under consideration: and although no rules,
however carefully framed, would suffice to prevent entirely the evil of
procrastination, some amelioration was effected under the instructions
and at the instance of the Bombay Government. The matter acquired added
importance from the application to the Bombay courts on January 1st,
1883, of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882),
which increased considerably the work of the Presidency Magistrates.
In 1887, the year preceding Sir Frank Souter’s retirement and death,
the Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr. Crawley Boevey, displayed a
rather more critical attitude than had previously been customary towards
the work of the police. He commented unfavourably upon the number of
minor offences dealt with under the Police Act, and suggested that the
Police sought to raise their percentages by charging large numbers
of persons, some of whom were respectable residents, with trivial
misdemeanours under local Acts, and that they might devote greater
attention to the more serious forms of crime. At the same time Mr.
Crawley Boevey evinced the strongest objection to the practice, hitherto
followed as a precautionary measure by the constabulary, of searching
suspicious characters at night; and he actually convicted and sentenced
to a term of imprisonment an Indian constable who had arrested and
searched a townsman in this way, under the authority given by section 35
of the old Police Act XIII of 1856. His decision was reversed on appeal
by the High Court: but the practice, which had on several occasions led
to the discovery of thefts and furnished clues to current investigations,
was nevertheless temporarily abandoned, until Mr. Crawley Boevey had left
the magisterial bench. It was resumed under Sir F. Souter’s successor
with the full concurrence of the Bombay Government, who recognized that
the searching between midnight and 4-30 a.m. of wanderers who were
unable to give a good account of themselves, was a valuable measure of
precaution in both the prevention and detection of crime.
The Commissioner of Police remained responsible for the working of the
Fire-Brigade practically up to the date of Sir Frank Souter’s retirement.
By 1887, however, the marked expansion of the city and the increase of
police-work proper obliged Government to relieve the European police of
all fire-brigade duty. The engineers of the Brigade were transferred
in that year to the Municipality, and in the following year the whole
organization, composed of engineers, firemen, tindals, lascars, coachmen
and grooms, became an integral part of the municipal staff under the
provisions of the new Municipal Act III of 1888. One of the largest fires
dealt with by the Police, prior to the transfer, occurred in 1882, when
the Oriental Spinning and Weaving Company’s mill at Colaba, which dated
from 1858, was completely destroyed.
The detective branch of the police-force, which was the nucleus of the
modern C. I. D., was a creation of this period. Forjett, as has already
been mentioned in connection with the events of 1857, had founded this
department; but his own powers and activities as a detective resulted
in little attention being paid to the plain-clothes men who served
under his immediate orders. When Sir Frank Souter succeeded him, the
progress of the city in every direction demanded administrative capacity
rather than detective ability in the Commissioner; and apart from the
fact that no Englishman at the head of the force could hope to emulate
Forjett’s personal success as a detective, the increasing volume of
routine work would in any case have obliged the holder of the office
to delegate the special detection of crime to a picked body of his
subordinates. The detective branch first came prominently to notice in
1872, in connexion with the de Ga and False Evidence cases mentioned
in an earlier paragraph. At that date the head of the branch was Khan
Bahadur Mir Akbar Ali. He was assisted by a more remarkable man, Khan
Bahadur Mir Abdul Ali, who eventually succeeded him. Under their auspices
the branch attained remarkable efficiency and was instrumental in
unravelling many complicated cases of serious crime, such as the murder
of the Pathan woman in 1887, and in breaking-up many gangs of thieves and
house-breakers. Not the least important of their duties was the constant
supply of information to the Commissioner of the state of public feeling
in the City, and the exercise of a vigilant and tactful control over the
inflammable elements among the masses at such seasons of excitement as
the Muharram.
If it is true that a really successful detective is born and not made,
Sir Frank Souter must be accounted fortunate in securing the services
of two such men as Mir Akbar Ali and Mir Abdul Ali, of whom the latter
wielded a degree of control over the _badmashes_ of the City wholly
disproportionate to his position as the superintendent of the _safed
kapadawale_ or plain-clothes police. Among his ablest assistants at
the date of Sir Frank Souter’s retirement were Superintendent Harry
Brewin, who was likewise destined to leave his mark upon the criminal
administration, Inspector Framji Bhikaji, and Inspector Khan Saheb Roshan
Ali Asad Ali. None of these men could be described as highly educated,
and the majority of the native officers and constables under their orders
were wholly illiterate: but they possessed great natural intelligence and
acumen, an extraordinary _flair_ for clues, and indefatigable energy.
These qualities enabled them to solve problems, to which at first there
seemed to be no clue whatever, and to keep closely in touch by methods of
their own with the more disreputable and dangerous section of the urban
population. It was for his services as Superintendent of the Detective
Branch that Khan Bahadur Mir Abdul Ali was rewarded by Government in 1891
with the title of Sirdar.
From time to time the arrival of distinguished visitors threw an
additional strain upon the police; and much of the success of the
arrangements on these occasions must be attributed to the energy of the
Deputy Commissioners of Police and the European Superintendents of the
force. At the commencement of this period the Deputy Commissioner was
Mr. Edginton, who had served under Mr. Forjett and shared with him the
burdens of 1857. In 1865 he was deputed to England to qualify himself for
the office of chief of a steam fire-brigade, then about to be introduced
into Bombay, and he is mentioned as acting Commissioner of Police in
1874. During a further period of furlough in 1872, his place was taken
by Mr. R. H. Vincent, and in 1884 permanently by Mr. Gell, both of whom
were destined subsequently to succeed to the command of the force. Among
the occasions demanding special police arrangements were the visit of
the Viceroy, Lord Northbrook, in 1872, of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1870,
of the Prince of Wales in 1875, of the Duke and Duchess of Connaught in
1883, the departure of Lord Ripon in 1884 and the Jubilee celebrations
of 1887. The general character of the police administration is well
illustrated by the statement of Sir Richard Temple (Governor of Bombay,
1877-80) that “the police, under the able management of Sir Frank Souter,
was a really efficient body and popular withal,”[100] and by the words
of Mr. C. P. Cooper, Senior Magistrate of Police, in 1875 that “during
the time H. R. H. the Prince of Wales was in Bombay (November, 1875),
when the City was much crowded with Native Chiefs and their followers,
and by people from many parts of India, and when all the officers of
the Department were on duty nearly the whole of the day and night, the
Magistrates had, if any thing, less work than on ordinary occasions.
This result was due to excellent police arrangements.”[101] These
eulogies were rendered possible by the hard work of successive Deputy
Commissioners and of the non-gazetted officers of the police force.
Apart from the numerical inadequacy of the force, to which reference has
already been made, the most vital needs during the later years of Sir
Frank Souter’s administration were the provision of police-buildings and
the proper housing of the rank and file. In his reports for 1885 and
1886 the Commissioner explained that all except a fractional proportion
of the constabulary were living in crowded and insanitary _chals_, the
rent of the rooms which they occupied being much in excess of the monthly
house allowance of one rupee, granted at that date to the lower ranks.
The absence of sanitary barracks or lines was one of the chief reasons
for the high percentage of men in hospital, and, coupled with the arduous
duty demanded of a greatly undermanned force, had led directly to a
decline in recruitment. The European police were in no better plight.
In default of suitable official quarters they were forced to reside in
cramped and inconvenient rooms, the owners of which were constantly
raising the rents to a figure much higher than the monthly house
allowance which the officers drew from the Government treasury. In some
cases it was quite impossible for an officer to find accommodation in the
area or section to which he was posted, and the discomfort was aggravated
by his being obliged, in the absence of a proper police-station, to
register complaints and interview parties in a portion of the verandah of
his hired quarters. Some relief was afforded by the construction between
1871 and 1881 of the police-stations at Bazar Gate, facing the Victoria
Terminus, and at Paidhoni, which commands the entrance to Parel road
(Bhendy Bazar): while from 1868 the police were allowed the partial use
of the old Maharbaudi building in Girgaum, which served for twenty-five
years as the Court of the Second Magistrate.
In 1885 the Bombay Government sanctioned the building of a new Head
Police Office opposite the Arthur Crawford market. This work, however,
was not commenced till the end of 1894, and the building was not
occupied till 1899; and meantime the Commissioner annually urged upon
Government the need of adding barracks for the constabulary to the
proposed headquarters, on the grounds that the chosen site was far more
convenient than that of the old police office (built in 1882) and lines
at Byculla, both for keeping in touch with the pulse of the City and for
concentrating reinforcements during seasons of popular excitement and
disturbance. Further relief for the European police was also secured in
1888 by the completion of the Esplanade Police Court, which superseded an
old and unsuitable building in Hornby road, occupied for many years by
the courts of the Senior and Third Magistrates. Quarters for a limited
number of European police officers were provided on the third floor of
the new building, which was opened in May, 1889.
Thus, apart from the task of perfecting arrangements for the prevention
and detection of crime on the foundations laid by Sir Frank Souter, the
chief problem which his successors inherited was the proper housing
of the police force, in a city where overcrowding and insanitation had
become a public scandal. The inconvenient and unpleasant conditions in
which the police were obliged to perform their daily duties resulted
directly from the phenomenal growth of Bombay since the year 1860, and
from the inability of the Government to allot sufficient funds for
keeping the police administration abreast of the social and commercial
development of the city. During his long _régime_ of twenty-four years
Sir Frank Souter saw the extension of the B. B. and C. I. Railway to
Bombay, the opening of regular communication by rail with the Deccan and
Southern Maratha Country, the construction of the Suez Canal and the
appearance in Bombay of six or seven European steamship-companies, the
feverish prosecution of reclamation of land from the sea, which increased
the area of the Island from 18 to 22 square miles, the construction of
many new roads and overbridges, the building of great water-works, the
projection of drainage schemes, and the lighting of the streets with gas.
He witnessed the old divisions of the Island develop into municipal wards
and sections; saw the opening of the Prince’s, Victoria and Merewether
docks; saw the first tramway lines laid in 1872, and watched the once
rural area to the north of the Old Town develop into the busy industrial
sections of Tardeo, Nagpada, Byculla, Chinchpugli and Parel. The number
of cotton-spinning and weaving mills increased from 10 in 1870 to 70 at
the date of his retirement, and the urban population increased _pari
passu_ with this expansion of trade and industrial enterprise. Between
1872 and 1881 the population increased from 644,405 to 773,196, and by
1888 it cannot have been much less than 800,000.
Sir Frank Souter relinquished his office on April 30th, 1888, and retired
to the Nilgiris in the Madras Presidency, where he died in the following
July. Thus ended a remarkable epoch in the annals of the Bombay Police.
It says much for the administrative capacity of the Commissioner that,
in spite of an inadequate police-force and the difficulties alluded to
in a previous paragraph, he was able to cope successfully with crime and
maintain the peace of the City unbroken for fourteen years. Frequent
references in their reviews of his annual reports show that the Bombay
Government fully realized the valuable character of his services,
while the confidence which he inspired in the public is proved by the
testimony of trained observers like Sir Richard Temple, by the great
memorial meeting held in Bombay after his death, at which Sir Dinshaw
Petit moved a resolution of condolence with his family, and by the
erection of the marble bust which still adorns the council-hall of the
Municipal Corporation. His own subordinates, both European and Indian,
regretted his departure perhaps more keenly than others, for he occupied
towards them an almost patriarchal position. All ranks had learnt by long
experience to appreciate his vigour and determination and his even-handed
justice, which, while based upon a high standard of efficiency and
integrity, was not blind to the many temptations, difficulties and
discouragements that beset the daily life of an Indian constable.
Realizing how much he had done to advance their interests and secure
their welfare during nearly a quarter of a century, the Police Force paid
its last tribute of respect to the Commissioner by subscribing the cost
of the marble bust by Roscoe Mullins, which stands in front of the main
entrance of the present Head Police Office.
The memory of Sir Frank Souter is likely to endure long after the last
of the men who served under him has earned his final discharge, for he
was gifted with a personality which impressed itself upon the imagination
of all those who came in contact with him. More than twenty years after
his death, the writer of this book watched an old and grizzled Jemadar
turn aside as he left the entrance of the Head Police Office and halt
in front of the bust. There he drew himself smartly to attention and
gravely saluted the marble simulacrum of the dead Commissioner—an act
of respect which illustrated more vividly than any written record the
personal qualities which distinguished Sir Frank Souter during his long
and successful career in India.
[Illustration: LIEUT.-COLONEL W. H. WILSON]