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

was confident there existed no grounds for such censurr;
and he therefore confidently appealed to the justice and
good feeling of the house to decide the important issue.
Mr. GLADSTONE regretted that personalities should
have entered so largely into the course of this debate;
if they were odious in respect to Lord Torrington, a
peer of the realm, and a man of intluence sett pro-
perty, how much more so were they when aimed at ho-
nourable and faiEfal servants of the public ? The ad-
vocates of the noble lord had taken an ill-advised course
in using wholesale vituperation against the most dis-
tinguished public officers in Ceylon, and attempted to
strengthen their cause by vilifying private character.
, The chief matter of discussion was, not the conduct of
' Lord Torrington, but that of her Majesty'. government.
In taking that view he did not stand upon a single
despatch written by Earl Grey, it might be during the
anxiety of these ovents,for it would be unfair and ungener-
ous to pin a man to a single word, written perhaps in the
anxious and often crushing circumstances of political life.
What he stood on was not the approbation given by Lord
Grey in his letter of the 24th of October, 1818, for the ap-
probation then given was given with a necessarily imper-
fect knowledge of the circumstances ; but its reaffirmation
and confirmation on more than one occasion afterwards,
when there had been a full inquiry, when a flood of light
had been thrown on the whole subject, and when the issue
was fully raised before him. (Hear, hear.) lie admitted
that a Secretary of State must run some risks—that he
must receive the account of a governor if he was a man of
honour and intelligence, and assume all he said to he right
till he knew to the contrary. (Hear, hear.) He admitted,
therefore, that a Secretary of State was bound to receive
as correct the accounts of those who were employed in
high office in the colonies, and it would of course be absurd
to hold that a Secretary of State was responsible for the
details of all that he might approve. Ile admitted that it
was not enough to show that there were irregularities hero
and there. This question must be viewed in the miss—in
its large outlines with regard to the great and
mighty principles involved, and not in its technical
details. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman ,aid there was no
details. As regarded confiscations, for example, the under-
secretary fur the colonies was quite wrong. Mr. Selby
distinctly stated that there had been confiscations, though
they were afterwards converted into sequestrations. But
they were to vindicate, in this matter, the highest and most
sacred principles on which the government of mankind was
to be carried on. It was not for small matters that he would
consent to pass a vote of censure on a great department of
the state, and on the government which had identified itself
with it. The colonial secretary had distinctly and broadly
adopted the whole proceedings of Lord Torrington ; this must
be fought out as a government question, and not as one con-
nected with the paltry purpose of persecuting individuals.
It ascended to the highest matter that could engage the
attention of a legislature, the sacredness of human life.
The outrages committed by the Ceylon insurgents either on
life or property were trifling—the assemblages of armed

; men did nut lasi for more than two days ; perhaps we had
witnessed something almost as serious within the past week
at home. Still there was no question raised as to the pro-
priety of proclaiming martial law ; the question was, o he-
• ther undue severities had been exercised under martial
law ? He would not hesitate to avow his conviction, that
for no rebellion could so much be said in palliation as fur that
of Ceylon in ISIS. No one could doubt that it was mainly
attributable to the new taxes. Consider, also, the position
of the people of Ceylon, in respect to their religion ; we had
not fulfilled the obligations into which we had entered to
maintain and take a qualified charge of the temple pro-
, perty. This was a matter lying nearest to the feelings of
the natives; yet we had chosen to break faith with them.
Another cause of the outbreak was the policy pursued for a
series of years in respect to the ancient chiefs of the Cinga-
lea° nation, breaking down the patriarchal rule which had
long subsisted, and substituting a policy of mistrust fur one
' of confidence. It was not contended that there was
general disaffection in Ceylon. The ease of the govern-
ment was that the people were the tools of their leaders,
' and he submitted that there never was a period when it
was more imperative in the administration of justice at the
earliest possible period to return to mercy and grace. Ile
• should now make a very brief statement of the causes
which would induce him to give his vote in favour of the
first resolution of the hon. member for Inverness. lie
thought that in dealing with the case of a colony like
Ceylon, they ought to draw a broad distinction between
charges which related simply to the undue assump-
tion of power, and charges which involved the cruel
or the unnecessarily harsh and severe exercise of power.
They had charges of both descriptions before them.
The first charge was not the proclamation but the pro-
longation of martial law. (Hear, hear.) Now, what
opinion was the house to pronounce on that prolongation ?
What was the justification alleged fur prolonging martial
law for a period of nearly two months and a half? Wkat
justification was urged by the highest authority on the
opposite side, by Lord 'lorrington himself? Lord Tor-
rington said—and this was evidently an afterthought—that
it was necessary to prolong martial law in order to have
facilities for taking the pretender. But Lord Tor-
rington, writing to Lord Grey on the fifth of
August, said that though the pretended king and
his brother were not taken, they could not long
remain in their present position, as the natives were
undeceived as to their pretensions, and a number of
people were in pursuit of them allured by the pros-
pect of reward. lie (Mr. Gladstone), having been a
member of the committee, and having attended carefully
to the debates, was not aware of a single testimony that had
been given which could justify the prolongation of .martial
law. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hawed, whose industry ho
must acknowledge, as well as the fairness which he had
shown on that occasion, had cited no such testimony. But even
the prolongation of martial law, if it 'tonal alone, could not
have induced him to vote on that occasion against the govern-
ment. But how did the case stand as regarded the military
executions in Ceylon ? (near, hear.) lie did hope that
the house, however weaned they might be with this de-
bate, which had detained them longer than they were
usually detained by colonial subjects—(hear, hear)—would
not be altogether deaf to an appeal to them as men and as
Christians to consider their responsibility in reference to
the effusion of human blood—(hear, hear)—for that was
the question which they had to consider. (Hear, hear.)
When her Majesty's government thought fit to confirm the
proceedings of Lord Terrington they distinctly put themselves
in Lord Torrington's place; and Lord Torrington having been
recalled the house had no right to look to him any longer,
unless they were prepared to impeach him. But the ques-
tion which the house had to consider that night was whe-
ther they should put themselves in the place of the govern-
ment—whether, in fact, they should take upon themselves
the responsibility connected with the military executions in
Ceylon. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman who had just
sat down had stated that the question raised had reference
to the cruel proceedings of the courts-martial. Oh, no,
that was not the question. (Rear, hear.) There were, in-
deed, allegations of great impropriety on the part of those
who ought to have taken care that the courts-martial
were conducted with due regard for mercy; but he was
not aware of any charge of inhumanity against those
who sat in those courts, and he agreed with those who said
it was not to be supposed that British officers, on being
transported to Ceylon, lost the principles of humanity and
mercy. (Hear, hear.) Those who sat on the courts-mar-
tial had nothing to do but to hear the evidence, and,
having heard it, W give lodgment according to it. What
did the hon. gentleman say next ? Why, he said that if
the courts-martial went wrong they ought to hare been
brought under the review of the military authorities in this
country. lie (Mr. Gladstone) would tell the hon. gentle-
man that no act of malversation could have been brought
under review in the manner that we supposed. This he
said on the authority of Lord Fitzroy Somerset, who de-
clared before the committee that the military authorities
hero had nothing to do with the courts martial unless they
were held under the Mutiny Act ; they were, he said,
mitigated courts under the review of the civil authorities.
In his opinion any gentleman who had the honour of a seat
in that house would wrong both justice and his own con-
science, if he dared to vote, or to abstain from voting, en
any question of this sacred nature. (Derisive cheering
from the ministerial benches.) Yee, he asserted that
human life was a sacred thing. (Loud cheers.) But
he would not pursue the subject further, as he
felt sure he had misapprehended the honourable
member. (A voice, "No you did not.") Well, that
was an additional reason why he should not pursue the sub-
ject. (Loud cheers.) He maintained that no consideration
of retaining or rejecting a government would justify mem-
bers of the British House of Commons either in retraining
from voting or in giving a vote—no consideration except a
desire, on full consideration, after calm investigation to be
guided solely by a sense of truth and justice. Rear, hear.)
They should remember that they stood before, not only
their own people, but the citizens of foreign countries, who,
while admiring our greatness, were at the same time
jealous of it, and who were ever on the watch
to see whether those principles which we so con-
stantly urged upon them with respect to personal freedom
and the sacredness of human life, wore faithfully applied by
' ourselves, and whether the British House of Commons--the
tribunal of appeal for the oppressed throughout the em-
pire—were ready to vindicate those principles, even against
those who occupied the high and exalted station of minis-
ters of the crown. (Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was with
some reluctance he entered upon the discussion of this
question, and that reluctance was increased by the great
difficulty he had in finding out the precise grounds
upon which the accusation against Lord Torrington was
founded. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) The whole course
of the debate had led him to conclude that cer-
tain specific charges were to be brought against Lords
Grey and Torrington ; but the right hon. gentleman who
had last spoken had eompletely shifted from the ground
taken by previous speakers. He had taken some pains
' to ascertain what had occurred in the committee, and
any one who had waded through the blue book—
he believed that very few had. (" Oh, oh," and
laughter.) Gentlemen might laugh, but did they
mean to amen that the great proportion of members
present had sifted the question. (Yes.) This was a judi-
cial inquiry there could be no doubt on that subject, and
I any one who had waded through the blue book must see
that this motion conveyed a grave and heinous charge
against two public men—against the one of having caused,
and against the other of having sanctioned a reckless waste
lof human life, a reckless infliction of human suffering.
(Hear, hear.) He was therefore justified iu calling this a
judicial inquiry, by which he understood an inquiry not in-
fluenced by any extraneousmotives, but one in which every
man should have taken pains to make himself master of the
case,and so be able to lay his hand on his heart and say
his was a true and impartial verdict. Now, he took the
liberty of appealing to hon. gentlemen opposite who had
come down merely for the purpose of voting on this occa-
sion. (Loud cries of " No, no," and ironical cheering.)
lie asked them how many had taken the trouble to master
the question ? (Continued cries of " Oh, oh," and confu-
aion.) lie was now sure that his observation came home to