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

process could not be executed. There
_was also the evidence
f Mr. Stewart, a native of Ceylon, and who unders'ood tile
anguage of the country, and considered by Si: A. Oliphant
to be a vary fair lawyer. He knew the Hon. Mera-er fore
Montrose would object to his evidence that was given it:
1829, though when the Hon. Member wished to obtaiu evi-
dence even in 1850 as to the events in 1848, he did not fin,f
him disposed to dieeredit that evidence. Mr. Stewart said
that the civil power had ceased to exist. He might multiply
these statements to a great extent. What course did Lord
Torrington take the very first moment when he received the
intelligence of the outbreak? He sent for Colonel Fraser.
He next calle I together the Executive Council. Did they
differ from him? No; they concurred. But there was one
remarkable circumstance to which the Honourable Member
for Honiton had referred. One member of the Executive
Council, Mr. Wodehouse, did not concur in the first
proclamation, but acquiesced in the second, and assigned
as a reason, that the proclamation having once issued,
a line of policy had been adopted, which should be fol-
lowed up, and said that he was not so fully informed of
the grounds of the proclamation as he ought to
have been. The Council was fully attended; he believed
that all the members attended. The fallest infor-
mation was laid before the Council, who came to a unani-
mous resolution on the sth of August, after the time when
it was said that perfect tranquillity had been restored, not
only that martial law was fully justified, but that the mea-
sures of the Governor were perfectly satisfactory. He
might refer to an event which happened elsewhere in
support of the conduct adopted on this occasion. The
Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in Ireland when perfect
tranquillity prevailed, but it was justified by the necessities
of the time. Independently of Mr. Wodehouse another gen-
tleman, whom he must regard as a hostile witness, concurred
in the proclamation—namely, Mr. Selby. He believed that
he had said enough to show that Lord Torrington, supported
as he was by all the military and civil authorities, was fully
justified in proclaiming martial law. With regard to the
character of Captain Drought, the evidence showed that he
had treated the natives no worse than his own soldiers,
so that it could not be said that he had acted with
undue severity. Besides, after all, these courts-martial
were held in public—in the presence of representatives
of the press. How was this, that there were no repre-
sentations to the major-general in command—no memo-
rials to the Secretary of State? On the 21 October,
1848, the Legislative Council assembled and presented an
address to the Governor. Martial law was still in force;
but what course did the Council adopt? They unanimously
agreed to an address approving of the conduct of the
Governor in his prompt declaration of martial law, and
added that they fully participated in the earnest desire
expressed by his Excellency for its termination, and would
be ready to give their earnest attention to the subject of a bill
of indemnity. Mr. Selby and Mr. Wodehouse concurred in that
address. The Hon. Member for Inverness-shire, thinking
that the address, being flattering to the Governor, must have
been written by Sir E. Tennent, immediately after that ad-
dress was read to the Committee, somewhat unguardedly
asked who wrote that address? "Mr. Wodehouse"—was
the reply. In 1849 the Legislative Council agreed to a
unanimous address in which they thanked the Governor for
the measures which he had adopted, to which they attri-
buted entirely the tranquillity of the colony. He could not
believe, after the evidence that had been given on the sub-
ject, that the House of Commons would consider there were
any good grounds for the motion of the Hon. Member for
Inverness. He wished now to call the attention of the House
to the statement of Mr. Selby, and to ask whether, if it
could be true th,t such irregularities and violence had been
committed in the way of confiscation and sequestration as
it was alleged, how did it 'happen that no complaints had
ever been brought before the local magistrates? Mr. Selby
bore importan, testimony to the circumstances that had
occurred. He (Mr. Hawes) asked him whether he could
call to mind any particular person who had made a com-
plaint, or was charged ? His answer was that he remem-
bered the name of one party chareed—his name was Mat-
thews; but he added that the case was not set led when
he left. Then he (Mr. Hawes) put this question to him :
—" As far as any complaints had been made which had
reached the authorities, had the Government shown any
disposition to prevent inquiry into them?" The answer
was that it was his belief it was only necessary for the party
to make their complaint to the proper authority to ensure its
being listened to, and such party was certain of obtaining
redress if aggrieved. Now he (Mr. Hawes) asked, in the
face of such evidence, could they believe that all these pro-
ceedings in Ceylon had been marked by violence and ille-
gality? But his Hon. and Learned Friend had alladed to
what he alleged were the confiscations that took place under
the proclamation of the 18th August. He, however, omitted
to tell the House that not a single confiscation had actually
taken place. He challenged him to point out the least evi-
dence to show that aoy confiscation had taken place on the
18th. of August. All the argument and ingenuity of his
Hon. and Learned Friend were, therefore, thrown away. Bet
it was said that sequestration followed. What was the
fact? When the insurrection took place, and martial law
was proclaimed, a great portion of the inhabitants fled to the
jungle and deserted their homes and properties. A vast
amount consequently of property thus des -rted was exposed
to plunder. The military, however, took possession of it,
and such of the property as was perishable was :old, and
the proceeds kept for the right owners, and such as was not
perishable was restored to the proper claimants. He did
not mean to say that there were not some cases of
hardship, for it was impossible to avoid these under such
circumstances. Ile must now be permitted to refer particu-
krly to one of the resolutions which the Honourable Mem-
ber for Inverness had placed upon the table of the House,
" That the refusal of the Governor to allow a shert delay in
the execution of a priest, at the request of the Queen's Ad-
vocate, who wished further investigation into the case, was
in the highest degree arbitrary and oppressive." The Hon.
Member must be aware that there was nothing Mr. Selby
insisted upon more strongly than this—that he did not go
to the Governor-General on the occasion referred to as the
Queen's Advocate. Mr. Selby distinctly declared that he
went there as a private individual. There was a most im-
portant distinction to be drawn between the two characters.
Mr. Selby went as a private individual upon the loose
and vague report cf one person. He knew nothing
of the truth of the statement he made himsett,
nor had he taken the slightest pains himself to ascertain
the accuracy of it. The Governor had, however, read the
whole of the proceedings of the court-martial, and was fully
acquainted with the facts therein disclosed; and, acting
upon the knowledge he had thus acquired, he felt it his duty
to refuse the application that was then made. Taking,
then. a fair review of the evidence given—that the procla-
mation of martial-law was fully justified according to the
opinions of the most eminent military and civil authorities—
considering that these stories of severity and violence were
not corroborated, and that Mr. Selby had distinctly stated
that all complaints made were heard and redressed—con-
sidering that the members of the Legislative and Executive
Council and that the military authorities had all concurred
in the one opinion—namely, the necessity for martial law
considering, too, that during the whole time of its continu-
ance there never was any direct representation made to the
Governor from any civil or military person that the con-
tinuance of this law was violent or unjustifiable, he thought
that there never was a case which the Governor could fall
back upon with more confidence than upon this case. The
conduct of his Noble Friend Earl Grey was impugned for
having given his unqualified approbation to the proceedings
that had taken place under martial law in Ceylon. He (Mr.
Hawes) thought the House must be struck with this circum-
stance—when the Honourable Member for Inverness had first
put his resolution upon the table of the House he spoke of the
" unqualified approbation" expressed by Earl Grey to Lord
Torrington, whereas the resolution that was now before them
had the word " unqualified" left out of it. The Hon.
Member, by this change in the wording of his resolution,
must be convinced that his first resolution was erroneous.
Be (Mr. Hawse) was not, however, going to take refuge
under that omission ; but he was prepared, to the best of his
ability, to defend the part taken by his Noble Friend in the
matter, as being consistent with all former precedents. When
a Secretary of State receives an account from any of the co-
lonies that an insurrection has broken out, what did the House
think was the course he should take under the circumstances ?
When he receives such an account from the governor, and
that he hears the troops had acted well under their proper
leaders—that owing to their gallantry and promptitude in
action tranquillity was restored, in such a case was the Secre-
tary of State to wait until sufficient time had elapsed to be
informed of every circumstance connected with the insurrec-
tion, in order that he might write his approval or condemna-
tion of the conduct of the governor? Such a course would
certainly be not consistent with the practice heretofore pur-
sued by a Secretary of State. Whenever similar accounts
had been 'received the Secretary of State for the time
being always answered immediately his approval of the
conduct or the governor, if the dispatch of the latter
was found to be distinct and clear upon the
facts. But did such intact
letter necessarily cover
every act done daring the time of the rebellion ? It was
impossible that any dispatch of the kind could be so con-
sidered; for the Secretary could not be cognizant of every
fact connected with the military proceedings. If the mi-
litary authorities in the colony were guilty of any crime
they would be responsible to the highest military authority
in this country. If those military proceedings were irregular
there were means under the military law of punishing the
offenders. If offences had been committed on the part of
the civilians, there were also proper tribunals for punishing
them. And yet that was the ground upon which the Hon.
Gentleman rested his motion. He would refer, as a prece-
dent, to the rebellion that broke out in Ceylon in February.
1818—martial law was then proclaimed. A dispatch was
received by the Secretary of State here announcing the fact
upon the 29th of July, and it was answered on the sth of
August by Earl Bathurst, who conveyed to the
Governor-General the approbation of his Majesty.
That dispatch was couched almost in the -same
language as that of his Noble Friend Earl Grey.
The next case was that of Jamaica. The dispatch announ-
ing the news of the rebellion there was received on the
it was answered in a similar spirit on
The case of Jamaica was a remarkable
14th October,
3d
of
October. 1823 ;
one, and many circumstances occurred then to call for in-
quiry. No one, however, could suppose that the dispatch of
the Secretary of State at that time could be considered as ap-
proving of every act done there—(" Hear, hear," from the Op-
sition)—and yet the language used there was very much the
14th of
tOctober,
niseh
same as that of his Noble Friend. In the case of Demerara,
opposite
(Mr. a dispatch was received on the
answered on the 21st of the same oniiaon.hen came the
case of New Zealand, when his RightGovernor-General the
(Mr. Gladstone) was in office. Gentleman
the
did not fail to send out to the appro-
bationnduct then pursued by
of her Majesty of the co
That
re whether there thewas
authorities. He did not wait to
ing'l there. The
any unnecessary severity or bloodshedvernment here was re--
patch conveying the news to the Go
it was answered by
ceived on the 25th of June, 1846, and
29th of June. In
the Right Honourable Gentleman on het
considerable29th
loss of
the case of New Zealand there was a d Surely
life, •
life, and subsequently martial law was p
on. Gentleman
it never could he contended that the Right •
•
by his dispatch should be held responsible for all that had
t
occurred. His Noble Friend Earl Grey had then taken the
only course in conformity with precedent that he could take.
The proceedings which took place in Ceylon were neces-
sarily severe. The tremendous powers of martial law should.
certainly be used with great caution, care, and humanity.
He should be very sorry to advocate the exercise of any
undue powers under the circumstances, for he was ready to
admit that the powers under martial law were most tremen-
dous ones to place in the hands of any authority. But, cn
the other hand, when events take place like those which
had occurred in Ceylon—when a public road was altogether
blocked up by the insurgents—when two towns were sacked
and plundered - when a King was actually proclaimed and
crowned—when the natives met in open arms to oppose the
Queen's troops - when there were all the incidents to consti-
tute a rebellion—when the civil law was altogether placed
in abeyance—then the Governor-General was justified, as he
thought Lord Torrington was justified, in the course ho felt
it his duty, in the emergency of the case. to take. The way
in which the press was employed constantly to vility the
Noble Lord's character—the systematic efforts which had
been made to damage all authority in Ceylon, and to dis-
credit every witness that came forward in favour of Lord
Torrington—all these circumstances marked this case
with a degree of severity and vindictiveness beyond an
case of the kind he had ever known before. One word in
reference to another charge made against his Noble Friend.
It was said that Lord Torrington had written two letters on
the aaras day, of an entirely opposite character, to two dif-