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

The principal room contained, among many other
works, two very interesting series of models, the one
from the Trinity-house, of lighthouses and beacons of all
kinds, from the earliest period down to the present time,
and the other, of modes of shipbuilding from the Admi-
ralty collections; with the latter, were models of appro-
priately-placed foreign boats, &c., from Mr. Allan; Mr.
Vint's submerged propeller; steam-engines and pro-
pellers from Messrs. Maudslay and Field, and Messrs.
Seaward and Co., showing many specimens of screw-
propellers. Sectional models were also exhibited of
Mr. Atkerton's expansive gearing, and of Messrs.
Pole and Thompson's patented improvements in
double or compound cylinder expansive steam-engines.
Warlich's concentrated fuel for steam purposes was also
shown.

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING. MAY 30, 1851.

Learned Gentleman refused to give it unless the ap-
plication came to himself through the ordinary official
channel. Now was that a proper course for the Learned
Gentleman to have adopted? Certainly not ; and he had
no hesitation in saying that had Mr. Selby held his office
in the East Indies instead of Ceylon, his refusal would
have subjected him to severe censure, if not to tho loss of
his official situation.—(Hear, hear.) Some objection had
been taken to the courts-martial. It was said they
were not conducted after the rules and regulations of
similar tribunals in the mother country; but if the
House would take the trouble to look over the mili •
tart' evidence taken before the Committee, they would
find that the proceedings of these courts-martial were not
only quite regular, but they were afterwards 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 comers, and so far from their being secretly
conducted, or so far from their at all exceeding
he 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,
and 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 bad read a
letter in introducing the resolutions, from Colonel Drought,
to the effect that a judge-advocate wag 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 or 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 functionary 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 Lushington turned round to the proc-
tors present aad 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 is-fused 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 necessary on seine occasions to sift the
conduct of individuals, and respecting this matter he took
upou himself to sift he conduct of Mr. Selby. That gen-
tleman told the Committee that when he arrived at Kandy
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. lle (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 at
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, on this information, went to Lord Torring-
ton, whom he found in consultation with Colonel Drought.
The case was an important one, there being no doubt that
the priests and headsmen were the chief fornentors of the
rebellion ; and therefore 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 toll' 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 saw that the evidence was conclu-
sive 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 cams 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 insulted, as he had been. He gave 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
ter not mentioning the case that he found he had gone to
the wrong person, that he found Lord 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 nosufficient reason. If
Lord Torrington had acted under the advice of Sir Herbert
Maddox he could not have done better, but that was no
reason why the Chief Justice, had he leen 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 expresson attributed to him,
he would be the first to condemn him, but, at the same
time, he must say that if, in the coLrse of the interview
alluded to by Mr. Selby, an unguardeded expressim had
I
escaped that Noble Lord, it was wrorg in that gentleman,
who was the confidential adviser of the Crown, to go and
publish it abroad. The Hon. 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
say 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 legal edu-
cation in this country, and who hal given practical expe-
rience of their abilities before the courts in this country--
(Hear.) But to come to the concluding resolution moved
by his lion. Friend, that the conduct of Earl Grey, in signi-
fying 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, but
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.) His duty was at once either to
say the Queen disapproves and recall a governor, or that
the 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 said, 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
thought it worth his while to bring forward this motion, as
Lord Torrington had been removed, but inasmuch as there
was no other mode of bringing this subject before the House,
the strictures upon Lord Torrington's conduct was the neces-
sary result of the motion. He was, therefore, desirous of
confining himself as closely as he could to the terms of the
motion before the House. Certain prominent points had
abheleen
agnrdaspeLdearbnyed theFsreieardesoluthtieons
f the
Noble Lord. If in a prosecution for a
re-
ferred to, had commented upon the
certain offence, if
instead of meeting the particular charge,
instead of confining himself to the
general mpaaltitce3r.so
a
,Mehmulater hisforHoCnoourkr,
reference was
nea kd en
e two the
what
that his speech was
the
charge. Now,
let
them see what was the question which gweonuelrdal
bceh
theara character
reply
andef his conduct o
Learnedf
rei
end. accused,
sa
in this case, he might retort upon him,
not an answer to, but an evasion of
they
were called
upon to determine. They
called upon to consider—.
under its sanction; and
e
thinly, the severities practised st iercsot
n,
dt hl
ye mtohdee
pi na r
iwo
dh i
dc
rmi agriwtieaearl
whichla withanda
db eheene
ac acror
aoeuit
;;
by the Noble Lord, the Secretary
to the end of these transac-
fourthly, the entire satisfactrieotnaryanedf asptparroebfaetrion d
the e xcperl eosnsieal
Department from the beginningtiwht
ee
rsaee differentwell-organised
ne qsi
sueeadsnt
dicoononrsi
pgi
iti
rniavcaoj sf_
ttt oleani
rsa.
dl
ue Ngt
yeodrwer,
ea inbsec
lelriotconsidering
.n ,Waaar
for overthrowing British rule in the island, or was it a rising,
the result of various just causes of discontent? Now, he

thought the priests were discontented, the headmen 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 naili-
taryofficers employed in suppressing this affair did not speak
of it as a serious rebellion, nor could it be gathered from their
statements that the outbreak was formidable in its character.
The Hon. and Learned 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 consequences 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 property 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 property ;" 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 that Sir Herbert advised that the Commandant
should issue another notice to persons to deliver themselves
up, and in the event of their not doing so, that their lands,
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
proclamation 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 of justice. 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 sequestratien.— (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, is 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
farther appeared that at a meeting of the Council in October,
1848, 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 suns he had appropriated upwards
of 500/. in repairing Government buildings, and in paying
a portion of salary to a party he had 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',: Government he should like to
have some further information with reference to the transac-
tions referred to. Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) defied heaMa-
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 quads 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 for 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 Bros. 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 arras.—(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 such things as armed
crowds going about. Then, t tgain, on the 23d of September,
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 tit an earlier period. Lord Torrington had written
on the 9th of August, 1849, to say that the pretender had
then fled; that all his attend: unts had deserted him, and that
he had taken refuge in the m suntains. In another letter he
wrote that the people were th en undecided as to his preten-
sions, and hundreds of them in pursuit of him, allured by
the reward offered. He wou Id then ask again, could there
be shown any case for con tinuing martial law up to the
10th of October? It had be en continued, however, three
weeks after the capture of the pretender. What could
have been Lord Torrington's o eject, then, in thus continuing
that state of things? No do abt his object was to continue
martial law until an Act of ineiemnity 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.
Now, with respect to the evidence being taken down not
being thought of consequence, would only say, if the sen-
tence was conclusive, it'was tl tr owing a great responsibility
upon the court; but if otherwiae how were the proceedings
to be submitted to a superior ti abanal, if there was no record
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 30th of March last,
professing to be a report of oni a .of those courts-martial, was
accurate or not ? He found a are were four prisoners to be
tried, and three young officer, s, lieutenants, were members
of the court. With regard to I:he 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 seco ad and fourth, there were
asked such questions as this--- "Did you see No. 4 with
a gun ? No ; but Mr. Mact si re did." On such evi-
dence as that four persons had b eon 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 knovr whether they were aware
of anything concerning the char:iciter 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-in finial were continuing what
he would call their bloody course, .;Sir A. Oliphant was sitting
in the civil courts of Kandy, ad afinistering the laws undis-
turbed. Why, then, should these terrible executions and the
continuance of martial law still p revail ? Thirty-four perf-
sons had been tried before the civil court, and the half 0,
them acquitted ; and out of the 126 tried by courts-martial
only ten had escaped conviction. How many of those lives
which had been sacrificed to • the inexperience of these
young men might t not have bee a. saved, if those legal ob
Jections which might be urged in their favour had been al-
lowed to interpose on the trial of t :hese unhappy men ? The
Honourable and Learned Gentl ensan next referred at
some length to, and read extract s from, the correspondence
which had taken place between ti to Chief Justice and Lor
Torrington on the subject of sp: tying the lives o
seven-
teen persons found guilty out of thirty-four tried
.before
him; and contended that the language of LhoradvaTeomrraningattoand
in that respect was not such as should
from one in his position. There was another case wherealaryd
an appeal had been made to tl to Governor with
soughtwit htoredge
to some priest, whose execution it
for some time. Now, there hthe, bnoeeornt-nzartiinatlenitnioatiataot
impeach the proceedings of
case; but the Queen's Advocateeoutioti.id aiphpeealciedueetno,a Lord
Torrington
t Stewart atthe,
Torrington to delay the
its dbopeeonty,prmes
vocate, Mr. Selby, had notexf
Johraim self I
trial; but he had learnnoetd
guilty, shut that two witnesses
appear SO. On learning that,
that the prisoner was
verner to ask a reprieve...enct
had conspired to makoethheivnuo
Mr. Selby had gone
ntid
be no doubt but that w
he thought there co
very
Noble
ington ac-
proper and correct course of procee ding for the Queen's
Advocate to adopt.
cordingly, but had found the Lord in a great state of
he had made use o F expressionst
If the epri fission
citement, and
aumnjustifiable character.
Torrington on that occasion had been .used, he would merit
the severest reprehension. Even alrhough martial law was
still in operation, there was no - part icallar necessity for an
immediate execution on the 20th of !April, and more espe-
cially when a doubt was entertained to to the guilt of the ac-
cused party. The Honourable Mem her for
Inverness-shire
(Mr. Baillie) said that the conduct cif the Governor on that
occasion was worthy the censure of the House of Commons,
and therefore he called upon them to award it.—(Hear,
hear.) There was an issue raised i tpon the question as to
whether or not the Governor had made use of the words
ascribed to him, and it was to be deci dad by the House. It
appeared that Mr. Selby had told tl se matter to Sir A. Oli-
phant immediately after it had occur Ted, 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 ten the 25th of April,
1848 ; and Mr. Selby had writt,en him word accord-
ingly, saying (when he had told hi in what he had to say)
the Noble Lord turned pale, struck b is thigh. and then made
use of the expressions attributed to him. Lord Torringtonhad not denied that statement, he Ltd only observed, ~
do not think there was any necessity to mention about
condemned the
turning pile." He also said he might have
conduct of the proctors, but he did not recollect thet he had
used any unbecoming expressions on the occasion. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman n referred to Colonel

Drought's letter, wherein that officer said that he was pre-
sent at the interview between Lord Torrington and the
proctors, and that he did not, on that occasion, hear any
such language uttered by Lord Torrington as alleged by
Mr. Selby. Lord Grey, too, in a subsequent communication
to Lord Torrington on the subject, dated the 25th of August,
said that he gave entire credit to the denial of Lord Torring-
ton of the expressions imputed to him in the interview
in question. If that were the case, what was
the position of Mr. Selby? Why, that he stood convicted
of a deliberate falsehood; yet, notwithstanding that, and
notwithstanding a letter written under the Noble Lord's di-
rection by the Under Secretary of State for the colonies, to
Lord Torrington, setting out the Noble Earl's views, the
Noble Earl subsequently forced Mr Selby back on the Go-
vernment of Ceylon, and recalled Lord Torrington from the
administration of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) He bad
now gone, ss he believed, fairly, and to the best of his ability,
through the case, and if he had stated anything wrong, he
ought to have been told of it. Undoubtedly, the question
was one of the greatest importance; it was a question which
ought not to be confined within the narrow walls of the
House of Commons. It was one which would go out into
all other lands, and which would have the most important
effect on the British colonies.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE was sorry, with the Honourable and
Learned Member, who had just sat down, to see that this
debate had degenerated into personal accusations, but he
must dissent from many of the accusations indulged in by
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, against the military
officers who had been engaged in the operations 011 that
occasion; and, as an old soldier and friend, he felt himself
called upon to defend Colonel Drought against the aspersions
which had been cast upon him by the Hon. and Learned
Member fur Abingdon, and by several other Hon. Members
who had addressed the House on the subject. He had longe
known Colonel Drought as a friend and neighbour, and had
a letter from him, stating that he had been much maligned,
and was ready and anxious to meet his accusers on the
fullest inquiry. If Lord Torrington thought proper to issue
a proclamation declaring martial law, his Lordship alone
was responsible for it, and the officers who took part in the'
operations, were only to be looked upon as carrying out
the instructions given to them in connexion with that pro-
clamation. The Hon. and Gallant Member then entered
into details of the executions which had taken place, under
the authority of the proclamation, and amongst them, to
that of the priest, and into a defence of the course of
Colonel Drought in connexion with those execu-
tions, and also of his conduct as connected with the con-
fiscations of the property of natives who were charged
with having taken part in the rebellion. Colonel Drought,
he contended, had nothing to do with those confiscations, but
to confirm, as a superior officer, the decisions of the young
officers who constituted the tribunals by which the confisca-
tions were pronounced.
Sir F. THESIGER—What has bsen stated of Colonel
Drought, is, notwithstanding, true; it is in evidence.
Colonel DUNNE - No evidence in the world could prove
it true.—(Laughter.) Colonel Drought had been greatly
misrepresented in connexion with the executions and con-
fiscations. They all knew what description of people the
Kandians were; that they were a people not to be trusted,
or dealt lightly with. They all knew that in a former rebel-
lion, those people had made 300 men of the 19th Regiment
prisoners, and that they had put those 300 men to death,
and it was with such a people that Colonel Drought, in
carrying out the objects of the proclamation, had to deal;
and in carrying them out, he was quite satisfied, from what
he knew of him, that he had not been guilty of inhumanity
or excess.
Mr. HAWES said he could not regret that the Howe had
had an opportunity of heariug the speeches made by his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant
Murphy), by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member
for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and by the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg); and he be-
lieved that considerable weight would be attached upon
that occasion to the opinion of the two former of those
Hon. Gentlemen, who were accustomed to sift the details of
evidence, and to that of the last of them, who had been in
the habit of dealing with large questions of public policy. 1.
He could not himself have attempted to address the House
until he should first have answered and refuted the charge
of a deliberate falsification of documents, which had been
brought forward against that department with which he
had the honour of being connected. He had given that
answer and that refutation; and he should then claim their
indulgence while he entered into a discussion of the many and
important details involved in the general subject which had
been brought under their consideration. But he wished first to
notice one or two statements made by the Hon. Member
for Inverness-shire, which more especially affected himself.
The Hon. Gentleman had hazarded some statements, as he
(Mr. Hawes) thought, somewhat lightly, and without much
regard for the feelings of others. The Hon. Gentleman had
said that the resolutions to which the Committee had come
had been the result of some compromise or understanding, to
the effect that he (Mr. Hawes) had consented, or rather had
conveyed the consent of his Noble Friend at the head of the
Colonial-office, and of the Government, to the recall of Lord
Torrington. Now, he utterly denied that he had ever men-
tered into any such understanding. Another statement
made was, that he (Mr. Hawes) had been willing enough to
admit the production of private letters when their produc-
tion would forward the views which he entertained; but
that when they were unfavourable he turned round and re-
fused his assent to their publication. The Hon. Member
who stated this was entirely mistaken, and if he had referred
to the proceedings of the Committee he would have seen
that this statement was unfounded in fact. Mr.
M`Christie's letters were public letters, and he stated to
the Committee that he bad no other foundation for the
grave and serious charges he made against Lord Torrington
but the identical letters which he had in his possession,
and the Committee, one and all, thought he ought to be
called on either to withdraw the charges or produce the letters
on which they had been founded. These letters were not
private in any proper sense of the term, apd if he had no
other foundation for his charge but letters signed by his con-
stituents at Colombo, they were bound to have these charges
supported by something beyond the single testimony of a
gentleman who knew nothing of the affairs of Ceylon but
from the instructions he received. Colonel liraybrooke was
quite willing to produce his letters. With regard to Mr.
Wodehouse's letters all he could say was this—that there
was a wide distinction between them and those to which he
had referred, for they were strictly private and confidential,
and contained matter not relevant to the Inquiry, and were
produced by the gentleman to whom they were addressed
without the knowledge or consent of the writer.—(Hear,
hear.) He now proceeded to the general question. His
Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, who had addressed the
House at considerable length, had stated most fairly at the
outset of his speech, that to form a sound opinion upen the
question it was necessary to have a competent acquaintance
with the evidence given in the . appendix, but that there
were a few prominent points which stood out in bold re-
lief, upon which a decision might be arrived at—aye or no
—upon the resolution then before the House. He could not
congratulate his Hon. and Learned Friend upon hie full
acquaintance ,with the evidence; for he had not siated fully
and fairly all the evidence even on those points to which he
had directed attention. After all, however, the questions on
which their decision would rest were few. What was the state of the island at the time when these events occurred?.
and, supposing the state of the island to have justified the
proclamation of martial law, was any undue severity shown
in carrying it into execution? His Honourable • and Learned Iriend had impugned the honour of all the
civil officers of the Government, by saying that the year
after the event, when they had been in communication with
the Colonial Secretary, all their answers were in favour of the
Government. This was the favourite argument of the Hen.
Member for Montrose; but it was absolutely necessary to ob-
tain further information to meet a number of charges, and he
was thoroughly convinced that accounts thus received from
honourable men who were present when the events occurred
were as worthy of credit as though they had been given at the
very time of the outbreak. He must remind the House
that these events happened in 1848, a most memorable
year, and one which would never be forgotten. The events
which occurred in Europe in that year exercised an un-
doubted influence in our colonial possessions, and gave hopes
to the disaffected. With reference to the causes of the rebel-
lion, he would refer to an authority which was most relied
upon by Hon. Members opposite. There bad been many re-
bellions in Ceylon from 1617 aucllBlB down to 1848, and
Mr. Selby was particularly asked to what he attributed the
rebellion of 1848. What was his answer? He attributed
the rebellion to the same causes as those which produced the
rebellion of 1842, but thought that many more people joined
the disturbance in 1848 from the dissatisfaction which they
felt in consequence of a belief which was entertained that the
Government was about to impose a great number of new
taxes. It was well known that interested parties did report
bat some 30 or 34 new taxes, some of them of the most

odious kind, were about to be imposed, and those who had
engaged in former rebellions took advantage of that alarm and
apprehension to excite the mass of the people who would
otherwse have remained loyal. His' Hon. and Learned Friend
made light of the alarm and danger; but Colonel Braybrooke
himself, an adverse witness, distinctly stated that Colonel
Fraser, when sent for by Lord Torrington en the ground of
his experience, " instantly advised him to proclaim martial
law. We were then under the apprehension that the whole
country was in a state of rebellion, and from his experience
he then advised that martial law should be proclaimedFpeSbi-r
bably from the cause I stated yesterday—namely,
that - r°-
Robert Brownrigg, had not declared martial law
till ruary, 1818, leaving four or five months to intervene, dur-
ing which time the
rebellion got to a head, whilst the
military bad n,t the power to act with that dscision and
energy which they would otherwiseuhave done." Colonel
Forbes, a witness summoned b
rose, said he could not help thiynki the
on. Member for Meat-
that hundreds of British
and thousands of native lives mijlintghave been saved if, at
the commencement of the rebee
had been made. He was on, stern and severe examples
quo big the opinion, not the evi-
relni
dece of Colonel Forhes, because his authority was much
relied on by the Hon.
contained in a w Member for Montrose, and this was
ork published ten years ago, having no re-
ference to present circumstances. The charge of the Chief
Justice, on trying the prisoners at Kandy before the proclama-
tion of martial kiw pretty well indicated the state of the coun-
try at the time. It would be found that that learned person
must distinctly stated that there was a rebellion, and that it
to
had nothingdo with taxes. Sure that Learned Judge,
who condemned 19 persons to death for high treason, was a
competent authority to say whether there was a rebellion or
rtot. There was ample documentary evidence to prove that
all the leading anthorities, civil and military, concurred in
thinking the state of the country such as to justify the pro-
clamation of martial law. Having thus shown that martial
law was necessary, he had only to deal with the second point
—namely, whether it had been carried out with most unne-
cessary severity. Colonel Braybrooke stated distinctly that
at first be thought they were on the eve of a great rebellion.
He afterwards thought, from information subsequently re-
ceived, that the accounts given at that time were exagge
rated ; but he had not all the accounts within his know-
ledge, but the Governor and Council had, and they thought
without
to be any
a die"
higher
differently; and General whom,Sinelt,miaht
ho respect to the Gallant Officer, Le
military authority, and others, were also opposed to him.
Colonel Fraser was held to be a great authority by Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, and he remembered that ue most inno-
thgaitveiteywidaesticoobjecticin-
cently opposed the proposition for calling him before
the Committee on the princir!e
able to call a subordinate officer to
his superior in matters connected with the against
general policy
of the government. Ile succeeded , and Was supported by the Hon. Member for Bucks, but it woul dbe well for those who took the same view as himself (Mr. Hawes) if he had been called, for a more complete justificatio
tion of martial law, and more completen eevfidteh-eceapopflitchae-
apprehensions which existed, could hardly
be cited in the
whole range of the evidence than in the statements of that
officer. He would refer toonc:v!iiingle pa cage, in which he
said that Lord Torring
pro-
claiming martial law, and taki perfectly justified in themost prompt and
vigorous measures to reduce the disturbed
ordination. He believed the provinces into sub-
gallant officer was right. He
had served in the rebellions of 1817 and 1818, and in his very
letter laid before the Committee
of the numbi.rs and gave a formidable estimate
arms of the l' '' anoians ; and had the re-
bellion not been supp
resse d , the scenes of 1817 and 1818
might have been repeated,
and Ceylon desolated. Take,
again, the evidenceof
the
Deputy Queen's Advocate. Ile
said distinctly that the civil power was at a stand-still and