The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-30 00:00:00

chief justice, who tried 34 persons for treason, who con-
demned 19 persons, and who was therefore a competent
asthoHty as to whether there was rebellion at that time.
(Hear, hear.) Well then, if this was the state of the coun-
try, and that soh irsh the case he affirmed was shown by
the testimony of all the leading authellltiest both civil and
military, he contended that there was sample justification for
the proclamation of martial law ; and if that were the case,
the consideration of the second question necessarily followed,
namely, whether there had been any unnecessary severity,
or any uncalled-for punishment inflicted by the courts-
martial. Now, on this point he must be permitted to say
that the authorities were strongly in favour of the necessity
for the proclamation of martial law. Col. Braybrooke
stated distinctly that at that time they were on the eve of a
that his informationbgreatrellion had
.Itwasb,ten exaggerated;ruetat aerw afterwards
thehe go.
said
vernor and his council thought differently, and not only they,
but other military authorities who—he hoped he might,
without offence, say—were as high and higher than Colonel
Braybrooke—ho alluded to Oen. Smelt and Col. Fraser.
Now, he (Mr. Hawes) had felt it his duty to resist
a motion in the committee for calling on Col. Fraser to
give evidence against his superior officer. He had on that
occasion been supported by the hon. member for Bucks
(Mr. Disraeli), and the committee had taken the same view.
But it would have been better fur Lord Torrington if Col.
Fraser had been called ; for more decisive evidence as to
the necessity of martial law he had never seen than had
been afforded by that gallant officer. [Mr. Hawes read a
Passage from a letter of Col. Fraser, who stated that he
considered Lord Torrington was quite justified in adopting
the step in question.] This was a witness that had been
especially cried up by the hon. member for Montrose ; and
he so far agreed with him (Mr. flume) as to think his
' (Col. Fraser's) judgment entitled to great weight. The
gallant colonel not only stated that Lord Torrington was
justified in proclaiming martial law, but he stated what
were the numbers and the arms of the Kandyans ; and
showed that there was a most formidable rebellion on foot,
which, if it had not been timely checked would have again
desolated the country like that of 1817-18. If the hon. and
learned gentleman would look at the papers he would find
the deputy judge adverted to stated that the civil power
übeticesx.elcuttedww4
justifi •
shieth:sralithffouoaretrt
h,t courtshaseetabsognodlgovernor
i absolutely
or;nutotecl77.l.,:l)::Tai:, processes couldrem e theirmn consequently,oedtm ur
(iiear,
if Ceylon, understood the language perfectly, was a very
fair lawyer, and had been declared by Sir Anthony Oii-
iitiv hear.) Another witness was Mr. Stuart. lie was a native
phant to be entitled to more consideration than Mr.
Selby.—Mr. Stuart said that at that time the civil
authority had ceased to exist ; the place was not in
British occupation. He stated that the rebellion of 1813
had a much less formidable beginning, and, in com-
parison with the recent one, was quite insignificant in its
effects. If evidence was to decide the question, it was cer-
tainly decided in favour of the view he took. Lord Torring-
ton' the momeut he received the first information, had sent
for Colonel Fraser, he hail then called together his exe-
cutive council, who concurred with him that the proclama-
tion of martial-law was necessary. A second council was
held on the 31st of July, at which martial-law was pro-
claimed in another district. One very remarkable circum-
stance was this: Mr. Wodehouse, a member of that
council, did not concur in the first, but in the
second proclamation of martial law, assigning as his reason
that, when once proclaimed, a line of policy had been
adopted which ought to be followed up. Mr. Wodehouso
conceived that he had not been so fully informed of the
grounds on when this proclamation had been issued as he
ought to have been; and at his instigation on the pith
August an executive council was called. It was fully at-
tended—he believed by all the members. The fullest in-
formation was laid before them; and then, after it was
said that perfect tranquillity had been restored, that no
farther outbreak took place, and that there was no necessity
fur martial law, they came to a unanimous evolution, nut
only that the proclamation of martial law was;perfectly jus-
tified, but that the conduct and measures of the governor
were perfectly satisfactory to the council. If the rebellion
had been completely put down on the 31st of July, the jus-
tification for the continuance of martial law was fuund in
the resolution of these geutlemen on the sth of August. The
Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended in Ireland when there
was perfect tranquillity, and it was justified by the necessity
of the circumstances. Colonel Braybrooke had stated in
his evidence that the moral effect of maintaining martial
law at that time was of great importance, and had had the
best effect. Mr. Selby, in sonic degree a hostile witness,
had entirely concurred in the proclamation of martial law.
Had atrocities been committed they could not have been kept
secret, and there was no evidence of them beyond unfounded
report. At a meeting of the legislative council, twelve
months afterwards, they had again voted an address thank-
ing the governor for the measures he had adopted, and
ascribing the subsequent tranquillity of the colony to those
measures. When martial law was first mentioned in the
council General Smelt, on the 25th of September, had ob-
jected to its being,revoked. lie (Mr. Hawes) didnot believe
that the house, with all this evidence before it, could cones
to the conclusion that there had been any unnecessary
severity. If it were true that the alleged irregularities had
taken place, how happened it that there hail been no corn-
plaints before the local authorities? Mr. Selby, in his
evidence, said there had been some such complaints; but
he could only recollect the name of the party charged in
one case; mud he stated that, as far ex complaints had been
made, the government had promptly inquired into and
redressed them. Was this evidence consistent with the
charge of irregularities and atrocities? The hon. and
learned member (Sir F. Thesiger) in alluding to the
proclamation of confiscation had omitted to state
that no single confiscation took place under that
authority. This was stated by Mr. Selby, and was con-
firmed by the whole evidence. But, mid the hon. and
learned gentleman' the sequestrations were violent and
unjustifiable. The fact was that numbers of the natives
fled to the jungles, leaving their property exposed. This
was taken posscasion of, and properly guarded by the mili-
tary, and was afterwards restored to its right owners.
There was even no complaint of any confiscation—no alle-
gation on the part of any individual sufferer. (Hear.)
The resolution of the hon. member (Mr. Baillie) spoke of
the refusal of the governor to allow a short reprieve in a
certain case, at the request of the Queen's Advocate, and
declared it to be cruel and oppressive. But Mr. Selby
stated that he did not go to the governor as Queen's advo-
' Gate, but in his private capacity. Ile asked for investiga-
tion; but the governor, having read the whole of the evi-
dence before the court martial, could not be expected to
set it aside in favour of a casual opinion picked up
by Mr. Selby, perhaps, in the course of conversation.
raking a fair review of what he had stated, he
thought that the proclamation of martial law was
justified—that none of the alleged irregularities and
oppression had taken place, that there had not been a
single expression of public opinion against the continuance
of that law, and that there never was a case in which a
governor could fall back upon all those who were competent
to advise him, or upon the press, with more confidusce
than in this case. But there was another part of the ques-
tion to which it was his duty to allude. The conduct of
Lord Grey was impugned for having given his
unqualified approbation of the proclamation of mar-
tial law, and the subsequent proceedings of the
courts-martial. When the honourable member (Mr.
Baillie) first put his resolutions on the table of the
house, he had spoken of the " unqualified approbation '
passed by Lord Grey on the conduct of Lord
Torrington; whilst in the resolution he now called on the
house to support the word " unqualified " was left out.
Of course the hon. gentleman must have been convinced
that his first resolution was erroneous when he took advan-
tage of the time afforded him to make the material altera-
tion in it that he had made. (Hear, hear.) But he (Mr.
Hawes) would not take refuge under that alteration; he
would defend his noble friend (Earl Grey) on other and
more direct grounds. When Secretaries of State re-
ceived account' from colonies representing them as
in insurrection, what course did the house expect
or conceive it was the duty of such Secretaries
to take ? Earl Grey received accounts from the governor
of this particular colony, in which he was informed that
the troops acted becomingly and properly under their
leaders, and that they discharged their duty with their
usual success and gallantry, and succeeded in restoring
tranquillity. (Hear, hoar.) Now he begged to ask hon.
gentlemen what course they conceived it to be the duty of
a colonial secretary to take on receiving such intelligence ?
(Hear.) Let them mark. The Secretary for the Colonies
had heard that insurrection had been suppressed,
and that all the authorities concurred with the
governor as to the justice and necessity of the means he
had adopted ; and, under such circumstances, was the noble
earl (Earl Grey) to wait, as the hon. member for Monitor'
required, until sufficient time had elapsed to enable him to
carefully investigate every matter with a view to approve
or condemn it ? (Hear, hear.) Such was not the practice
of previous secretaries. Whenever similar accounts had
been received by previous secretaries they invariably an-
swered immediately, forwarding the sovereign's approbation
to the governor and general commanding in the colony.
But did these despatches approve of every act committed
during the rebellion ? It would be impossible that they
could be so framed, inasmuch as the Secretary for the
Colonies could not be expected to be cognisant of all the
facts. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Ceylon the military '
proceedings took place under the sanction of the military
authorities. and if any of those proceedings were irregular
the military tribunal was amenable to punishment by the
military authorities. The same might be said of the civil
proceedings ; but to suppose for a moment, after receiving
despatches announcing that au insurrection had been
quelled and tranquillity restored, that a secretary was to
sanction everything done during the putting down of that
insurrection was most unreasonable. (Hear, hear.) And
yet that was the ground on which the hon. member for In-
vernessserted that his noble friend (Earl Ghdceroeet
is
)
he
uld
how by
ued
f this
foynloct t:hui
Canada,
metheidacted,hlaye
matted
oe properly,
conduct
pre-
cedentsoeoccasions.
tdncourse
suee
Demerara, c.ale:oh
asttpauuheluL
ane
deand rested
insurrectionmrd Te woeft
Torrington
secretaries
oiaisa
iat
tMr. e
la
general.:.
ine
drfnreeeifinnfaeMBeirrfnr reference
referred
former
1017:1
approval
nwdErm 8
tas-llharBe,
. A
by
he
ial
enOnprmthesmtwhagolmemshet s
huib-m
hapadpropuvemluoefde:auerydacthtatthathte
cawasse
done, On
cwivitills,uconmpamrallercedwv,iruecicciensciem.
tiTchaeraenfedrem,hoinitusnm.hgue_amh as
labouring—and
noblethey
lord had received support from all parties—military
had the assurance of the Qaeen'sepoAhndovemeovcaery.,te"offictdheaurteokalleamicecohatedomuid:
preferred were heard and redressed where possible
sgluelairehnetinote(nlitherelionneabwwlerial)otardgr°P,Peiliweddsellththuet;luwere prepared
to
Pau
cep-
with the administration of the government in that colony, as
also against the noble earl the Secretary for the Colonies,
for the part be had taken in the performance of his onerous
and responsible duties ? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hawes)