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

MAY SO, 1851.

FRIDAY

Thompson, deceased, Jan. 13; Ensign William Law-
rence Murphy to be Lieutenant, vice Stubbs, who retires,
May 30.
BREVET.—Brevet Major C. E. Napier, of the 25th
Foot, to be Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army, May 30.
MEMORANDIIM.—The Christian names of Brevet-
Col,Juel Morris, C. 8., on half-pay, as Lieutenant-Colonel,
Unattached, are " Edmund Finucane."

ERRATUM in printing the Gazette of the 23d May.
The appointment of Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Ed-
ward Macarthur, on half-pay Unattached, should have
been Deputy Adjutant-General to the Forces serving in
New South Macs, and not Deputy Assistant General, as
therein stated.

Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of Oxfordshire.
Queen's Own Regiment of Oxfordshire Yeomanry
Cavalry—Cornet Henry Barnett to be Lieutenant, vice
Wykebam, promoted, May 26.
BANKRUPTS.
John Hammond Hunt, warehouseman, Silver-street,
City, June 10 and July 10, at twelve, at the Court of
asnkruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-
street ; Sole and Turner, Aldermanbury.
George Courthope, coal merchant, Paradise-row, Ro-
therhithe, June 12, at half-past eleven, and July eleven,
at half-past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whit-
more, official assignee, Ba4inghall-street; Newbon and
Evans, Wardrobe-place, Doctors'-Commons.
Robert Cleaver, timber dealer, Stretton-on-Dunsmore,
Warwickshire, June 9 and July 7, at ten, at the Bir-
mingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee, Bir-
mingham; Elkington, Birmingham.
William Henley Bond, wine merchant, Brierley-hill,
Staff irdshire, June 9 and July 7, at half past ten, at the
Birmingham District Court. Whitmore, official assignee,
Birmingham; Smith, Birmingham.
James Clark, builder, Exeter, June 11 rind July 22,
at eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzel,: offi-
cial assignee, Exeter; Geare, Mountford, and Geare,
Exeter.

Roger Hortop, innkeeper, Morice Town, Stoke Da-
nit rel, Devonshire, June 19, and July 17, at eleven, at
the Exeter District Court. Hernaman, official assignee,
Exeter; Elworthy, Plymouth,
John Scott and John Scott, jun., ship owners, North
Shields, June 13, at half-past twelve, and July 16, at
eleven, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court.
Baker, official ',Assignee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Bell,
Brodrick, and 5.11, Bow Churchyard; Thomas and Wil-
liam Chater, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
David lon Wyatt and Eliza Underwood, hat manufac-
turers, Bristol, June 10 and July 8, at eleven, at the
Bristol District Court. Amman, official assignee,
Bristol; Salmon, Bristol.
Richard Mayor, grocer, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire,
June 19, and July 4, at twelve, at the Manchester Dis-
trict Court. Lee, official assignee, Manchester; Tyrer,
Liverpool.

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from returns made in the week ending May 27,
1851, exclusive of Customs Duties paid or payable thereon
on the importation thereot into Great Britain:—
From the British possessions in America 265. 11d. per cwt
From the Maurit us ... —s. —d. „
From the East Indies 275. 41d. „
Average price of the two foregoing de-
scriptions of sugar, jointly, computed as
above, and exe usive of duty ... 265. aid. „
By authority of Parliament,
HENRY BICKN ELL. Clerk of the Grocers' Company.
Grocers'-hall, May 30.

BANK OF ENGLAND.
(From this night's Gazette.)
An Account, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth of Victoria,cap. 32 for
the Week endlig on Saturday, the 24th day of May, 185
1118111 DETAJIMLINT.
X.
Notes issued....... 26,905,510

X.
Government debt • . 11,015,100
Other securities .... 2,984,900
Gold coin and bullion 12,872,135
Silver bullion .. .. . • 33,375

£26,905,510

X 26,905,510
M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
Dated the 29th dgy of May, MI.

•••
MOLD.

IMPERIAL PA,RLIA►MENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 29.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'CluCk.
CEYLON.—ADJOURNED DEBATE,

Sir J. W. HOGG (in continuation from our Third
Edition last night) said—That some objection had
been taken to the courts-martial. It was said they
were not conducted after the rules cud regulations of
similar tribucals in the mother country; but if the
House would take the trouble to look over the mill •
tery evidence taken before the Committee, they would
find that the proceedings of these courts-martial were not
only quite regular, but they were after wards approved by
the commanding officer of the colony. Fault, however, was
found with the proceedings of these courts-martial, because
they were not presided over by the judge-advocate or his
deputy; but with whom did the blame for that omission
rest? Not with Lord Torrington. No, but with Mr.
Selby, the Judge-Advocate himself, who refused to
attend or to allow his deputy to attend.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") These courts were held in public,
open to all corners, and so far from their being secretly
conducted, or so far from their at all exceeding
the limits of the constitution or the law, all
the evidence produced before the Committee went to
show that they were strictly legal, and honourably
and humanely conducted.—(Hear, hear.) There was
a numerous body of proctors and solicitors in Ceylon,
d those gentlemen formed a considerable portion of the
evidence, so that if a single flaw had been perceivable in the
proceedings of them, such would have been taken advantage
of and exposed. There was, therefore, actually no evidence
before the Committee as to the regulation of those courts-
martial. It was true his Honourable Friend had read a
letter in introducing the resolutions, from Colonel Drought,
to the effect that a judge-advocate was not necessary at
them ; and, no doubt, practically speaking, such was the
case, for the proclamation of martial law being a suspension
of all the ordinary laws, as a matter of course it was left
discretionary as to whether a judge-advocate should be em-
ployed er not, and Colonel Drought, knowing that in some of
these cases a policeman had been employed as judge-ad-
vocate, and seeing that such a course could be of no use,
while at the same time it showed the feeling to be that such
a funct'onary was necessary, stated what was the fact, that
no judge-advocate was required. Such, then, was the general
evidence as to the mode in which those courts were con-
ducted; and he would now come to the particular
case mentioned in the resolution of his Honourable
Friend—the case of the priest—and which he put forward
as a specimen of the mode in which all the others had
been conducted. This court-martial was held at Kandy on
the 25th August, 1848, and was presided over by Major
Lushington, an officer of high character and talents. The
court was crowded during the whole trial, and among those
present were Mr. Buller, the judge of one district of
the colony, a Mr. Stables, the judge of another district, and
six or seven judges of other districts. There were also pre-
sent a number of planters, proctors, and solicitors, together
with Mr. Selby, the brother of the Queen's Advocate. That
latter gentleman told the Committee that on the trial being
entered upon, Major Lushing on turned round to the proc-
tors present and said that any of them would be at liberty
to examine witnesses and address the court in behalf of the
delinquent priest, when five of them out of the number pre-
sent refused to do so. Now, would the House believe that it
was one of those five who afterwards went to Mr. Selby,
the Queen's Advocate, and said that the conviction was
wrong, and that the proceedings of the court had been irre-
gular. It was neces-ary on some occasions to sift the
conduct of individuals, and respecting this matter he took
upon himself to sift the conduct of Mr. Selby. That gen-
tleman told the Committee that when he arrived at Kandy
I after the trial, one of those four, a person of the name of
Smith, called and told him that the priest had been unjustly
condemned, and that the proceedings had been conducted
irregularly. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) asked him when that
statement was made to him by Smith did he take any pains
to inquire of others who were present as to whether it was
well founded before he went to the Governor in order to
obstruct the course of justice. He said that he went to
the Advocate-Depute, Mr. Stewart, who was present
the trial, and who told him that the whole proceedings
were conducted regularly, and that the conviction was right;
but why did he not tell Lord Torrington that, when he went
to him in order to get the conviction set aside ?—( Hear,
hear.) In his opinion, it was the duty of the law officer of
the Crown in that colony, before he dared to have obstructed
the course of justice, to have examined well into how
matters had been conducted, and not to have acted on the
opinion of a single solicitor, while all the rest who heard the
trial were satisfied as to the justice of the sentence. Well,
then, Mr. Selby, oe this information, went to Lord Torring-
ton, whom he found in consultation with Colonel Drought.
The case was an important one, there being 110 doubt that
the priests and headsmen were the chief fonaentors of the
rebellion; and therefoie it was proper that either of those
parties, if clearly convicted, should be punished. Lord
Torrington had, therefore, gone over the proceedings of the
court-martial with Colonel Drought, and both were satisfied
that the case had clearly been made out. After this, on
Mr. Selby arriving, he told Lord Torrington as to Smith's
statement, and requested that the conviction should not be
carried into effect. Lord Torrington stated that he had
every confidence in Major Lushington ; and having gone
over the proceedings, he slew that the evidence was conclu-
,ive against the convicted party, and he did not, therefore,
feel it his duty to avert the sentence. Mr. Selby said that
at that interview Lord Torrington made use of an expres-
sion, which, if correct, he did not hesitate to say was unbe-
coming in any one, more especially one in the station of the
Noble Lord, and which was, " By God, if all the proctors
in the island should say that he is innocent, he shall die to-
morrow." Mr. Selby declared these words were uttered,
while Lord Torrington had not the least recollection of hav-
ing used words to any such effect, and Colonel Drought, who
said he came in towards the conclusion of the interview be
tween Mr. Selby and Lord Torrington, but that, in his hear-
ing, the Noble Lord did not express any unbecoming lan-
guage, also stating,that when he so came in Lord Torrington
was calm and collected, while Mr. Selby seemed angry and
flurried. Mr. Selby then went on to state that on leaving
Lord Torrington he met Sir Anthony Oliphant, the Chief
Justice, who told him that he was going to
Lord Torrington to request that the sentence of the
priest should be annulled, upon which he told the Chief
Justice that he had better not, as he had been to him on the
same errand, and should he go he had no doubt he would
be insul ed, as he had been. He give him that advice, he
said, because Sir A. Oliphant was ill at the time, and it was not
proper that he should be subjected to excitement. But if Mr.
Selby believed that this priest was innocent and unjustly
convicted, why did it happen that he prevented the Chief Jus-
tice going to Lord Torrington in order to get his sentence
repealed ? Would it not have occurred to him that the Chief
Justice would have had more influence with Lord Torrington
in such a matter than himself ?—(Hear, hear.) Certainly,
it he wanted the sentence repealed, his course
would have been to have advised the Chiet Justice to pro-
ceed. But it turned out that Mr. Selby's advice to the
Chief Justice not to go was ineffectual, for Sir A.
Oliphant says he did go to Lord Torrington, and
that they had talked over the trials held under these courts-
martial, but that he never particularly mentioned the trial
of this priest, or that he was unjustly condemned. That
would appear to be a contradiction of the evidence on that
point. It was true Sir Anthouy Oliphant gave as a reason
tor not mentioning the case that he found he had gone to
the wrong person, that he found Lerd Torrington was acting
in the matter under the advice of Sir Herbert Maddox, and
he therefore considered there would be no use in opening
the subject to him. But that was no sufficient !vas, n. It'
Lord Torrington had acted under the advice of Sir Herbert
Slaldox he could not have done better, but that was no
reason why the Chief Justice, had he been convinced of this
priest's innocence, should not have made an attempt to
save him. In regard, therefore, to this part of the case,
had Lord Torrington used the expression attributed to him,
he would be the first to condemn him, but, at the same
time, he must say that if, in the course of the interview
alluded to by Mr. Selby, an unguarded expressi n had
escaped that Noble Lord, it was wrong in that gentleman,
who was the confidential adviser of the Crown, to go and
publish it abroad. The lion. Gentleman who spoke second in
the debate (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) had said that Mr. Selby
had not sufficient experience for the office he held ; but he must
sly that from the appearance he made before the Committee
that was not correct, for the idea he then formed of him was
most favourable, and he would not have hesitated to ap-
point him to such an office. He thought, however, that the
Colonial Secretary should be more guarded in appointing
these colonial legal functionaries, and that no one should be
appointed who had not gone through the proper legit edu-
cation in this country, and who had given practical expe-
rience of their abilities before the courts in this country.—
( Hear.) But to come to the concluding resolution moved
by his Hen. Friend, that the conduct of Earl Grey, in signi-
lying the approbation of her Majesty, was precipitate and
Injudicious. His Hon. and Learned Friend, in bringing this
subject before the House, had endeavoured to speak of the
general bearing of Lord Torrington's Administration. He
(SirJ. W. Hogg) did not justify irregularities, which must
occur at times in case of war, and above all, in case of re-
bellion; but he must say that there was no evidence con-
necting Lord Torrington with these irregularities.—(Hear.)
The resolution of his Hon. Friend said that the approbation
given by Earl Grey was precipitate and injudicious, bat
did his Hon. Friend mean to say that the Noble Earl was
to lay by with cowardly craft and await the result before he
expressed an opinion? That course of political conduct he
did not approve.—(Hear. 1 His duty was at once either to
say the Queen disapproves and recall a governor, or that
t he Queen approves and support him.—(Hear.) He thought
that when this motion was made, the Noble Lord (Lord
John Russell) ought to have refused it. He hoped that no
Colonial Secretary of this country would hesitate to give his
opinion upon such a subject openly, fairly, and promptly.
Lord Torrington sends early advice of the facts, and to that
Earl Grey replies in a dispatch, which was free from any
cavil or objection whatsoever. The conduct and advice of
the Noble Earl had been impugned; but he sail, before you
arraign Earl Grey, you must prove that there is just ground
for stigmatising the administration of Lord Torrington. The
Hon. Baronet here read Earl Grey's dispatch, and proceeded
to say that if the Noble Earl had been aware that this dis-
cussion was to have taken place, he could not have written a
dispatch more to his honour.— ( Hear ) Reference had been
made to a quotation from Burke; but they should recollect
that the man he accused ( Warren Hastings) was subse-
quently received by the House of Commons with acclama-
tion, and upon his retiring the House rose and uncovered. -
(Hear.) In conclusion, he held that he must declare judi-
cially that he motion was not justifiable, and consequently
he must give it his uncompromising opposition.—(Cheers.)
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER said that with respect to
the question before the House, he thought it was directed
especially to the policy of the Colonial -office. If that were
not so, he thought his Honourable Friend would not have
e
thought it wor h his while to bring motion,forwardtbisaare
th as
Lord Torrirgton had been removed, but inasmuch
was no other mode of bringing this subject beforaestthhee
House,
the strictures upon Lord Torrington's conductr w
neces-
sary result of the motion. He was,
could
to the terms of thetheefore, desirous of
confining himself as closely as he
thesed
motion before the House. Certain prominentpoilniatsaahaard.
resolutions, but
been grasped byhis
Honour-
able and Learned Friend the Member for Cork,
re-
ferred to, had commented upon
c n generalfore certain offence, if
instead of confining himself
the
eo the matterspolicaf
the
eNoble Lord.
made to the general character
pr:retiucutraarndchcoanrgdeLtaofretfehreenaccceus'evdas,
instead of meeltifnginthae
that his s
theym to were
consider—
first, the mode in which
called
upon to determine.
he knew what would be the reply of his Learned Friend. S 0
in this case, he might retort upon haifmt,he
charge. pNeeechw, let
them see what waswas
not an answer to, but an evasion
uweestrieonealledupon which
martial law had been carried out;
Tthheeyq
secondly, the period during which it
under had.ts sanction
been continued ;
thir-dy, the severities practised
auction ; and
fourthly, approbation the entire satisfaction and robatio _ expressed
by the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonial
Department from the beginning to the end of these transac-
tions. Now, in considering these different questions it was
Was it a well-organised conspiracy
their duty to ascertain what were the causes and origin of
ftobri so
va el iretgherdo wreinbgel 113 i orni s h rule irs the island, or was it a rising,
the result of variolll Just caum of discontent? Now, he

thought the priests were discontented, the headrrom were dis-
contented, and, above all, the people were discontented, from
various causes; but the people chiefly from the imposition of
new taxes. Now, could anybody who had read these papers
doubt that upon the 12th of July, when there was a tumultu-
ous assemblage of the people, who came to Lord Torrington,
and asked for the repeal of the new taxes imposed, if Lord
Torrington had acceded to that request (he did not say he
ought to have done so), but if he had, could there be a doubt
that the causes which enabled the priests and headmen to
goad them into rebellion would have been wanting. The mili-
tary officers employed in suppressing this affair did net speak
of it as a serious rebellion, nor could it be gathered from their
statements that the outbreak was formidable in its chatacter.
The Hon. and Leaned Member then referred to the pro-
claiming of martial law by Lord Torrington, and said that
what he complained of was, that when martial law was pro-
claimed there were no instructions given how it was to be
carried out. He denied, however, that a proclamation of
martial law gave unlimited power and authority to a com-
manding officer. The usage in such cases shows the limits
within which martial law should be exercised, and he con-
tended that if Lord Torrington had accompanied his procla-
mation with proper instructions, the c eisequences which had
resulted, and which were so much complained of, could not
have occurred. It appeared that it was supposed that Col.
Drought, under that proclamation, had uncontrolled power
over the persons and property of those who were believed to be
rebels, and that he had power to confisca e the properly of
those who might be absent from their homes at that period.
It was then observed that Sir Emerson Tennent was
not slow in taking advantage of the doctrine of confisca-
tion, as appeared by the letter which he addressed to
Lord Torrington, published in the blue book, although,
when Sir Emerson was before the Committee, he explained
that what he meant was the property that was confiscated
after the parties had been proved to be rebels.—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared, however, that in point of fact, Colonel
Drought entered the houses of suspected parties who were
absent, and carried away property both of a perishable and
imperishable nature. On the 16th August, 1848, the secre-
tary issued a letter which he sums up as follows :—" The
troops were engaged taking possession and removing confis-
cated p-operty • ' and yet he said before the Committee that
all that was done was to sequestrate the property and
secure it for future disposal. The Honourable and Learned
Member then referred to the instructions which were issued
under the name of Captain Watson' and a further proof,
he said, was the letter of Sir Herbert Maddox, a gen-
tleman who was owner of a coffee estate, and of consider-
able experience, and on whom Lord Torrington mainly re-
lied as his confidential adviser. The advice which that
gentleman gave was in the appendix to the seeond report.
It seemed the Sir Herbert advised that the Commandant
should issue a ther notice to persons to deliver Themselves
1 up, and in the vent of their not doing so, that their lands,
11,
houses, and all other property should be confiscated, and
that when the Commandant determined to confiscate, he
should draw up a form or notice to that effect. On the
16th of August it seemed that Lord Torrington did issue a
proclama ion to the effect advised, and in that proclamation
he used the words, " the late disturbances." That paper was
laid before Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, and that gen-
tleman gave it as his opinion, that it was decidedly illegal
to confiscate the property of those who had not been con-
victed in a court ofjustice. Lord Torrington, in consequence,
requested an immediate interview with the Queen's Ad-
vocate and the Queen's Deputy-Advocate with reference
to their opinion as to the illegality of the confiscation, and
from that period attempts were made to convert confis-
cation into sequestration.-- (Hear, hear.) After referring to
the proceedings of Captain Watson on various occasions the
Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to say that Lord Tor-
rington, in writing to Lord Grey, did not send copies of the
proclamation of Colonel Drought, and the opinion of Sir
Herbert Maddox, but afterwards he did send them, stating
that his reason for not doing so previously was, that he had
mislaid them. Lord Torrington' in writing to Lord Grey
after the conversation with Mr. Selby, nevertheless stated
that the proclamation was issued with the advice of Mr.
Selby, the Queen's Advocate. He afterwards, however, pro-
mised that he would write to Lord Grey, explaining that he
had made a mistake in saying that Mr. Selby had acqui-
esced in the terms of the proclamation.—(Hear, hear.) It
further appeared that at a meeting of the Council in October,
1843, Lord Torrington stated that perishable property only
had been confiscated, and that the accounts had been
strictly kept, and in writing to Lord Grey he had
stated the same. It appeared that the sale of the
property confiscated by Captain Watson had realised
6161. 75., and of that sum he had appropriated upwards
of 600/. in repairing Government buildings and in paying
a portion of salary to a party he bad appointed to
take charge of the confiscated property. It would have been
thought that under these circumstances Lord Torrington
would have condemned the conduct of Captain Watson, but,
on the contrary, Lord Torrington said, in one of his letters,
that Captain Watson had acted bona fide in the matter, and
that in the expenditure of the money he had expended it for
purposes useful to the Government. Lord Torrington had
written to Earl Grey. it appeared, on the subject, for in a
letter sent out by that Noble Earl he said that he had re-
ceived the dispatch seeking to relieve Captain Watson from
certain liabilities in some pecuniary transactions connected
with the late disturbances • but so far, said the Hon. and
Learned Member, was Earl Grey from reproaching Captain
Watson, that he said he entertained no doubt of the pro-
priety of Captain Watson's conduct, but that before he gave
the sanction of her Majesty's Government he should like to
have some further information with reference to the transac-
tions referred to. Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) defied her Ma-
jesty's Attorney or Solicitor-General to say the confiscation
of property was at all warranted by martial law, and he
would undertake to prove that there was no necessity for
martial law at all, and that it should have ceased long be.
fore it was abrogated by the Government of Lord Torrington.
(Hear, hear.) He would quote upon that subject the opinion
of one of the most accomplished philosophers and jurists that
this country ever produced—the opinion of Sir James Mac-
intosh, who said that while the law was silenced by the din
of arms, those who were armed with authority must punish
as equitably as they could those whom it was necessary to
punish fig their own safety and that of society, but no longer.
Then, with reference to the Act of 1799, which Honourable
Members would .recollect continued martial law in Ireland
after the force of the common law had been somewhat re-
stored, Sir James Macintosh said that in such a case martial
law could not be proclaimed without the sanction of the le-
gislative authority. The Hon. and Learned Member then
proceeded to refer to a letter written by General Smelt, on
the :30th of July, according to which it appeared that
more alarm was created in his mind by the profound
peace which prevailed in the colony than had previously
been by the din of arms. --(Hear, hear.) In the
last dispatch which had been received from Sir E.
Tennent, in August, he had said that he found the country
in a peaceable state—the roads being filled with cattle, the
bazaars opened for business, and no suck things as armed
crowds going about. Then, again, on the 23d of eptember,
1848, they found Lord Torrington writing to Col. Drought
that " the military measures adopted crushed the rebellion
in the bud."— (Hear.) 'Was there, therefore, he would ask,
any necessity in the state of the country for enacting mar-
tial law, with such results? Let them see what excuse there
existed /et an earlier period. Lord Torrington had written
on the 9th of August, 1e49, to say that the pretender had
then fled; that all his attendants had deserted him, and that
he had taken refuge in the mountains. In another letter he
wrote that the people were then undecided as to his preten-
sions, and hundreds of them in pursuit of him, allured by
the rewa'd offered. He would then ask again, could there
be shown any case for continuing martial law up to the
10th of October? It had been continued, however. three
weeks after the capture of the pretender. What could
have been Lord Torrington's obj et, then, in thus continuing
that state of things? No doubt his object was to continue
martial law until an Act of indemnity was passed. (Hear.)
In a dispatch from Lord Torrington to Earl Grey he had
pointed out the necessity of such an act, as there was no
power to order the confiscations and sacrifices which had
taken place. ' From the 18th April .the courts.martial had
been conducted without the presence of a judge-advocate.
Nuw, with respect to the evidence being taken down not
being thought of consequence. he would only say, if the sen-
tence was conclusive, it was throwing a great responsibility
upon the court; but if otherwise how were the proceedings
to be submitted to a superior tribunal, if there was no recoid
of them? There were very imperfect accounts of those
courts-martial ; but he wished to know whether the state-
ment in the Morning Chronicle of the 80th of March last,
professing to be a report of one of those courts-martial, was
accurate or not? He found there were four prisoners to be
tried, and three young officers, lieutenants, were members
of the court. With regard to the first and third of those
persons, it did not appear that there was a tittle of evidenee
to implicate them in any part of the illegal transactions;
and with regard to the second and fourth, there were
asked such questions as this—"Did-you see No. 4 with
a gun ? —No ; but Mr. blactaire did." On such evi-
dence.as that four persons had been found guilty of high
treason and sentenced to death. A note had been appended
to the account of those proceedings, signed by Mr. Mactaire,
Captain Wilson, and Colonel Drought; but that had not been
until 15 months after the proceedings, and when the Govern•
ment had sent to them to know whether they were aware
of anything concerning the character of these men. No no-
tice of that had been taken until the Committee commenced
its inquiries ; and then indeed the Colonial Secretary had
thought fit to express a censure upon that officer. At the
very period when these courts-martial were continuing whet
he would call their bloody course, Sir A. Oliphant was sitting
in the civil courts of Kandy, administering the laws undis-
turbed. Why, then, should these terrible executions and the
continuance of martial law still prevail ? Thirty-four perf-
sons had been tried before the civil court, and the half o,
them acquitted; and out of the 126 tried by courts-martial
v
theseli es
only ten had escaped conviction. How many of those
which had ,been sacrificed to the inexperience of
young men might not have been saved. if those legal oh-
jea lous which might be urged in their favour had been al-
lowed to interpe ?Th
e
Honourable on the trial of these unhappy men
Honourable and Learned Gentleman next referred at
some length to, and read extracts from, the correspondence
which had taken place between the Chief Justice and Lord
Torrington on the subject of sparing the lives of seven-
teen persons found guilty out of thirty-four tried before
him; and contended that the language of Lord Torrington
in that respect was not such as should have emanated
from one in his position. There waswaansostheurghetasteo where
an, appeal had been made to the Governor with regard
o me pries, whose execution it
tfor sso me time.t Now, there had been noo intention to
impeach the proceedings of the court-martial In that
case; but the Queen'stbe Advocateehad alp,bpeealQedueetno,s LordAd
Torrington to delay
vocate, Mr. Selby, had not himself been present at the
iny,hiesut thal't two witnesses
he had learned fro.. de/m.3', Mr. Stewart,
trial; but
that the prisoner was not. guilt h
reeparTelvneg2ahnadt,
had conspired to make him appear so. 0 .
Mr. Selby had gone to the Governor to ask :
he thought there conld be no doubt but that was a very
proper and correct course of proceeding for the Queen's
Advocate to adopt. He had gon gone to Lord Torrington ac-
cordingly, but had found the
Noble Lord
riene
sai
ogreat sat amteosot
e f
excitement, and he had made useef.
unjustifiable character. If th
expressionp attributed to Lord
Torrington on that occasion had been used, he would merit
the severest reprehension. Even although martial law was
still in operation, there was no particular necessity for an
immediate execution on the 20th of April, and more espe-
cially when a doubt was entertained as to the guilt of the ac-
cused party, The Honourable Member for Inverness-shire
( Mr. %Lillie) said that the
n d tthe Governor on that
occasion was worthy the
censurec
o u of
ocf the House off eimmons,
and therefore he called upon them to award it.—(Hear,
hear.) There was an issue raised upon the question as to
whether or not the Governor had made use of the words
ascribed to him, and it was to be decided by the House. It
appeared that Mr. Selby bad told the matter to Sir A. Oli-
phant immediately after it had occurred, as it had been laid
before the Committee. In 1819 Lord Torrington had written
to Mr. Selby, praying him to give him an account of the
circumstances which took place on the 25th of April,
1848; and Mr. Selby had written him word accord-
ingly,
)
saying (when he had told him what he had to say)
the Noble Lord turned pale, struck his thigh, and then made
use of the expressions attributed to him. Lord Torrington
had not denied that statement, he had only observed, " I
do not think there was any necessity to mention about
turning pale." He also said he might have condemned the
conduct of the proctors, but he did not recollect that he had
used any unbecoming expressions on the occasitom The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman then referred o Colonel

Pre.
Drought's letter, wherein that officer said that he wanand the
sent at the interview between Lord TorringMlhear eel
proctors, and that he did not, on that occasion,
_sd by
such language uttered by Lord Torrington as aitiler,tibe
Mr. Selby. Lord Grey, too, in a subsequent cornin,
to Lord Torrington on the subject, dated the 25th
Lord
Aut
saidton (t)hfatthhee gave entire credit to theto dheinoilaliaof
in ques'ion. If that were the case, whatCOlaYict',
the position of Mr. Selby? Why, that he stood „
of a deliberate falsehood; yet, notwithstanding
Lord notwithstanding a letter written under the Noble isorr,
rection by the Under Secretary of State for. the col 10
Lord Torrington, setting out the Noble Earl's views,
theCl4
Noble Earl subsequently forced Mr. Selby back on.,ro_
vernrnent of Ceylon, and recalled Lord Torrington iii7bij
administration of the Government.—(LTear, hear.)
the nTt°errtsi-flii
tnborwo gone,ugh the e e hsc
case,
eebelieved,fairly, and
stat toed the best
go f hwirsoliebilt
ntuvie
ought to have been told of it. Undoubtedly, the,,',l,,
bicl
was one of the greatest importance; it was a questi of ;$
ought not to be confined within the narrow walla
t
House of Commons. It was one which would go. oti_to
all other lands, and which would have the most itsP°'
effect on the British colonies.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE was sorry, with the Honourable
Learned Member, who had just sat down, to see thatt
debate had degenerated into personal accusations, but bJ
must dissent from many of the accusations indulgtiiite
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, against then:, 00
officers who had been engaged in the operations en
self
felt mer7lolo
occasion ; and, as an old soldier and friend, he
called upon to defend Colonel Drought against the storied
which had been cast upon him by the Hon. argimerobeel
Member for Abingdon, and by several other Hon. had lea
who had addressed the House on the subject. Be oe
bat
known Colonel Drought as a friend and neighbour, slicoedt
a letter from him, stating that he had been much o%c the
and was ready and anxious to meet his accusers ;jos
fullest inquiry. If Lord Torrington thought proper ape
a proclamation declaring martial law, his Lord tb°,
was responsible tor it, and the officers who took Pert , 00}
operations, were only to be looked upon as catrYt.°nrce
the instructions given to them in connexion with til't;ral
claraation. The Hon. and Gallant Member then %der
into d-tails of the executions which had taken pleeeLese to
the
that auofthority of the proclamation, and amongst t
arse of
the priest, and into a defence of the execs'
Celonel Drought in connexion with those
se soy
tions, and also of his conduct as connected with tl'horgal
fiscations of the property of natives who wereXouebti
with having taken part in the rebellion. Colonel If',;bot
he contended, had nothing to do with those confiscatt°';ooeg
to confirm, as a superior officer, the decisions of the
officers who constituted the tribunals by which the e°";jag,
tiona were pronounced.
el Sir F. THEsIGER—What has been stated of colon
rought, is, notwithstanding, true; it is in evidence: will
Colonel DUNNE No evidence in the world colu"restlf
it true.—(Laughter) Colonel Drought had been ed eor
misrepresented in connexion with the executions en the
fiscations. They all knew what description of Pe°,Prosted.
Kandians were; that they were a people not to be ',rebels
or dealt lightly with. They all knew that in a forMe'disolit
lion, those people had made 300 men of the 19th Pree'destbi
prisoners, and that they had put those 300 men t°lo,
in
and it was with such a people that Colonel Drone dssli
carrying out the objects of the proclamation, had t° west
and in carrying them out, he was quite satisfied, from pit/
he knew of him, that he had not been guilty of jebilln
or excess.
.
Mr. HAWES said he could not regret that the fit:l:tebed
ocs
had an opportunity of hearing the speeches made by Ii
and Learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Ser°o ber
Murphy), by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Ale°
001
for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and by the Hon. Gen
els
the Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg); and be og
lieved that considerable weight would be attached gsse
that occasion to the opinion of the two former of
As of
Hon. Gentlemen, who were accustomed to sift the det'"„je
evidence, and to that of the last of them, who had bee'
the habit of dealing with large questions of public loosso
He could not himself have attempted to address the hogs
until he should first have answered and refuted the et heal
of a deliberate falsification of documents, which hnsbe
brought forward against that department with
tht had the honour of being connected. He had given their
answer and that refutation ; and he should then din soe,
indulgence while he e .tered into a discussiod of the be°
important details involved in the general subject whst t°
been brought under their consideration. But he wished eipbe!
notice one or two statements made by the Hon.P. 0
5
for Inverness-shire, which more especially affectedht be
The lion. Gentleman had hazarded some atatemente,o,
(Mr. Hawes) thought, somewhat lightly, and without
regard for the feelings of others. The Hon. Gentleievosee
said that the resolutions to which the Committee had, to,
had been the result of some compromise or understanenise
the effect that he (Mr. Hawes) had consented, or rath, :fib!
conveyed the consent of his Noble Friend at the heasiera
Colonial-office, and of the Government, to the recall eior
Torrington. Now, he utterly denied that he had ever inept
tered into any such understanding. Another etat„ fit°
made was, that he (Mr. Hawes) had been willing en°goo,o''
admit the production of private letters when their p
Lion would forward the views which he entertained rt•
that when they were unfavourable he turned round
~ensler,
fused his assent to their publication. The Hon. sleet
who stated this was entirely mistaken, and if he had o'et
00
to the proceedings of the Committee he would have Of'
that this statement was unfounded in fact. to
M`Christie's letters were public letters, and he eta lbe
the Committee that he had no other foundation farll
grave and serious charges he made against Lord Torrse 100
but the identical letters which he had in his posseipe
and the Committee, ne and all, thought he ought, tato
celled on either to withdraw the charges or produce the J..; fel
on which they had been founded. These letters we'd Po
private in any proper sense of the term, apd if he 111100'
other foundation for his charge but letters signed by bis
7
stituents at Colombo, they were bound to have these cl 3 0 I
supported by something beyond the single testimony 1,01 gentleman who knew nothing of the affairs of Ceylollo
from the instructions he received. Colonel BraybrookBf,
quite willing to produce his letters. With regard to i•
Wodehouse's letters all he could say was this—that
""li° I
was a wide distinction between them and these to whine't, had referred, for they were strictly private and coefideeoff
and contained matter not relevant to the Inquiry, andreed
produced by the gentleman to whom they were add
op
without the knowledge or consent of the writer.— (PSio
hear.) He now proceeded to the general question. the
Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, who had addressed 00
House at considerable length, had stated most fairly at Ipe
outset of his speech, that to form a sound opinion 'upeld.
question it was necessary to have a competent acquaint
with the evidence given in the appendix, but teat 1, le
were a few prominent points which stood out in bold 10
lief; upon which a decision might be arrived at—aye r
te —upon the resolution th n before the Melee. He cos: ee
congratulate his Hon. and Learned Friend upon hAinfig
acquaintance .with the evidence; for he had not stateu,still°
and fairly all the evidence even on those points to,vib"Sl
had directed attention. After all, however, the questiee
which their decision would rest were few. What- Willie
state of the island at the time when these events occur
and, supposing the state of the island to have justified,
proclamation of martial law, was any undue severity 513
in carrying it into execution ? His Honouree
and Learned Iriend had impugned the honour :of
all
e~
civil officers of the Government, by saying that the yid
after the event, when they had been in communication tool
the Colonial Secretary, all their answers were in favour t'ene
Government. This was the favourite argument of the at,
Member for Montrose; but it WAS absolutely necessary to le
tain further information to meet a number of charges, nao,
was thoroughly convinced that accounts thus received st
honourable men who were present when the events occei
were as worthy of credit as though they had been giVen aid
very time of the outbreak. He must remind the m,.;11,11
that these events happened in 1848, a most mern°'oo
year, and one which would never be forgotten. The eye
which occurred in Europe in that year exercised a,,eopd eoubted influence in our colonial possessions, and gave "ei:
to the disaffected. With refer rice to the causes of the 1.00
lion, he would refer to an authority which was most r 0: upon by Hon. Members oeposite. There had been manyd
bellions in Ceylon from 1817 and 1818 dovin to 184 c, 00
Mr. Selby was particularly asked to what he attributed d
rebellion of 1848. What was his answer
attriblll 01
the rebellion to the same causes as those which produce". 00
rebellion of 1842, but thought that many more people j°llol
,
the disturbance in 1848 from the dissatisfaction which "01
felt in consequence of a belief which was entertained that
et
Government was about to impose a great number of
taxes. It was well known that interested parties did repst
that some 30 or 34 new taxes, Some of them of the 1141
odious kind, were about to be imposed, and those lell° engaged in former rebellions took advantage of that alarraltd apprehension to excite the mass of the people who f°,"-04
otherwse have remained loyal. His' Hon. and Learned
tiers
made light of the alarm and danger; but Colonel Brayhrras4
himself, an adverse witness, distinctly stated that C°l-e ot
Fraser, when sent for by Lord Torrington en the groan
his experience, " instantly advised him to proclaim toe- id
law. We were then under the apprehension that the 0.-,fce
country was in a state of rebellion, and from his e p ,ellee-ece
he then advised that martial law should be proclaizmeesueir
bably from the cause I stated yesterday namely, thailFebe
rßaoabryer,tlßBrlBow,
Ineraivgigoghfaodurnoort
fidvecelamreodtithinsarttoialiultaewrv' ern,:
mil
ing which time
the the rebellion got to a head, whilste seei
military Lad not Power to act with that dscissO!,josst
energy which they would otherwise have done." tdooste
Forbes, a witness summ.oned by the Hon. Member foriritioh
rose, said he could not tell) thinking that hundreds of Plf st
and thousands of native lives might have been saved
Ip'le°
the commencement of the rebellion stern and severe e%e
deuce of Colonel Ill'oerbvresa,e
had been made.
quotingoecaaae thehis oapaitnhioorni,tynowtaatboo,l%.,ll;
relied on by the Hon. Member for Montrose, and this re'
contained in a work published ten years ago, having °joie'
Terence to present circumstances. The charge of the ,tor'
Justice, on trying the prisoners at Kandy before the peocie-ose tion of martial law, pretty well indicafed the etate of thec°ooo
try at the time. It would be found that thit learned pert it
most distinctly stated that there was a rebellion, and Seder
had nothing to do with taxes. Sure that Learned 0
who condemned 19 persons to death for high treason, or
competent authority to say whether there was a rebelOtot
' not. There was ample documentary evidence to prove; in
all the leading anthorities, civil and military, concern°.
thinking the state of the country such as to justify the fog
clamation of martial law. Having thus shown that rensint
law was necessary, he had only to deal with the second Poe
—namely, whether it bad been carried out with most lbat
cessary severity. Colonel Braybrooke stated dietinctlflia.
at first he thought they were on the eve of a great robe'
re'
He afterwards thought, from information subsequena
ceived. that the accounts given at that time were eetegs°,e-
rated ; but he had not all the accounts within his Itns- ht
ledge, but the Governor and Council had, and they tb°lo.
ht hold to be a 'Tarn.
reel:ere?
ttloy
t;
haen dGra
IGI
aennteroalfficSemr. ehl te,
mwigh
without AnLber
military authority, and others, were also opposed to aeote
Colonel Fraser was held to be a great authority by raw.'
Gentlemen opposite, and he rectmeedremtwobered that he most4--fste
cently opposed the proposition for calling him li
the Committee on the principle that it was obies's"?st
his able to
superiorca 1 call aiosmubaotrtdeirnsacteonnoffiee
of the government. He succeeded fan t give
d t hweesysgi desenuneperpeaolPd
01:e yis
the Hon. Member for Bucks, but it would be well forort '
bed
who took the same view as himself Mr. Hawes) if Pores-
been called, for a more as
ejustifccation of the OA ithe
whole range of the evidence than in the
tion of martial law, and more apprehensions which ex• complete d
s t a
teesimi deer: c „0"11 the
isted, could hardly be cite that
officer. He would refer to one single passage, in tWsn,°l'
said that Lord Torrington claiming martial 1 -and twaaksin and
vigorous measures tnduce the i pgeurttehcet lymr
uoj
vsutisut
sub-
ordination. lie believed dst rbedp t.
had the gallant officer was rigl eery'
served in the rebellionsof 1817 and 1818 and te
in tisia
letter laid beforethe •
Committee gave a formidable el,be re-
of the numbers and arms of the Kandians ; and had iftlB
hellion not been suppressed, the scenes of 1817 ati° Take,
might have been repeated, and Ceylon desolated. lie
again, the evidence of the Deputy Queen's Advoca.atB-itan
said distinctly that the cly4 power was at a 4441:14.8'..
Picfiree°sc ri ICO