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

le

1.1 .

Proees
3 could not be executed. There was also the evidence
'Ala Stewart, a native of Ceylon, and who understood the
to be
of the country, and considered by Sir A. Oliphant
ste a very fair lawyer. He knew the lion. Member fur
ilei,,i!t.rose would object to his evidence that was given in
de,?e though when the Hon. Member wished to obtain evi-
hif
~even in 1650 as to the events in 1848, he did not find
oh4lataposed to discredit that evidence. Mr. Stewart said
the civil power had ceased to exist. He might multiply
theselonitistatements to a great extent. What course did Lord
gton take the very first moment when he received the
Reemgence of the outbreak? He sent for Colonel Fraser.
sanext called together the Executive Council. Did they
,nieer from him? No ; they concurred. But there was one
fo'7„,arkable circumstance to which the Honourable Member
co,,aeouiton had referred. One member of the Executive
kot'Lliletil, Mr. Wodehouse, did not concur in the first
_ (nation, but acquiesced in the second, and assigned
remon, that the proclamation having once issued,
ailedof policy had been adopted, which should be fol-
ail% UP, and said that he was not so fully informed of
grounds of the proclamation as he ought to
t3a'te been. The Council attended. attended; he believed.
atall the members The fullest infor-
to lea was laid before the Council, who came to a unani-
oetls resolution on the sth of August, after the time when
alas said that perfect tranquillity had been restored, not
I:47that martial law was fully justified, but that the meas
of the Governor were perfectly satisfactory. He
int t refer to an event which happened elsewhere in
iPort of the conduct adopted on this occasion. The
tbeas Corpus Act was suspended in Ireland when perfect
It t
(ifai,uillity prevailed, but it was justified by the necessities
loe time. Independently of Mr. Wodehouse another gen-
i eclat, whom he must regard as a hostile witness concurred
44 title proclamation—namely, Mr. Selby. He believed that
looead said enough to show that Lord Torrington, supported
I„n•La was by all the military and civil authorities, was fully
oi'uaed in proclaiming martial law. With regard to the
Leaseter of Captain Drought, the evidence showed that he
171 treated the natives no worse than his own soldiers,
o due
it could not be said that he had acted with
),.'ne severity. Besides, after all, these courts-martial
ore held in public—in the presence of representatives
po the press. How was this, that there were no repre-
Oations to the major-general in command—no memo-
i`';B to the Secretary of State? On the 2i October,
8, the Legislative Council assembled and presented an
lad,ress to the Governor. Martial law was still in force ;
o," what course did the Council adopt? They unanimously
peed to an address approving of the conduct of the
i':?rernor in his prompt 'declaration of martial law, and
ded that they fully participated in the earnest desire
ti
pressed by his Excellency for its termination, and would
ofready to give their earnest attention to the subjectof a bill
indemnity. Mr. Selby and Mr. Wodehouse concurred in that
dress. The Hon. Member for Inverness-shire, thinking
4et the address, being flattering to the Governor, must have
Zen written by Sir E. Tennent, immediately after that ad-
;les was read to the Committee, somewhat unguardedly
who wrote that address? "Mr. Wodehouse"—was
,1e reply. In 1849 the Legislative Council agreed to a
i'i,nirnous address in which they thanked the Governor for
},!3 measures which he had adopted, to which they sari-
,loed entirely the tranquillity of the colony. He could not
lieve after the evidence that had been given on the sub-
feet, that the House of Commons would consider there were
111 Y good grounds for the motion of the on. Member for
llrerness. He wished now to call the attention of the House
the statement of Mr. Selby, and to ask whether, if it
'Old be true th ft such irregularities and violence had been
tenunitted in the way of confiscation and sequestration as
Was alleged, how did it jhappen that no complaints had
I,rer been brought before the local magistrates? Mr. Selby
Ore important testimony to the circumstances that had
ncureed. He (Mr. Hawes) asked him whether he could
411 to mind any particular person who had made a com-
Plbtainr, or was charged? His answer was that he remem-
tred the name of one party charged—his name was Mat-
tgews; but he added that the case was not sersled when
e 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
;leposition to prevent inquiry into them ?" The answer
has that it was his belief it was only necessary for the party
Maks; their complaint to the proper authority to ensure its
'eing listened to, and such party was certain of obtaining
?dress if aggrieved. Now he (Mr. Hawes) asked, in the
'4ee of such evidence, could they believe that all these pro-
ceedings in Ceylon had been marked by violence and ille-
gality? Brit his Hon. and Learned Friend had alluded to
'hat he alleged were the confiscations that took place under
proclamation of the 18th August. He, however, omitted
to tell the House that not a single confiscation had actually
',lkea place. He challenged him to point out the least
do show to show that any confiscation had taken place on the
18th of August. All the argument and ingenuity of his
on. and Learned Friend were, therefore, thrown away. But
tt was. said that sequestration followed. What was the
act? When the insurrection took place, and martial law
oßas proclaimed, a great portion of the inhabitants fled to the
Jungle and deserted their homes and properties. A vast
amount consequently of property thus deserted was exposed
Plunder. The military, however, took possession of it,
and such of the property as was perishable was sold, 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
rucumstances. He must now be permitted to refer particu-
ly 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 short delay in
tut 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.
hoisted
must be aware that there was nothing Mr. Selby
to upon more strongly than this—that he did not go
in the Governor-General on the occasion referred to as the
Queen's Advocate. Mr. Selby distinctly declared that he
ant there as a private individual. There was a most im-
trtant distinction to be drawn between the two characters.
r• Selby went as a private individual upon the loose
nn, c 1 Vague report of one person. He knew nothing
a the truth of the statement he made himself,
ilc,)r had he taken the slightest pains himself to ascertain
accuracy of it. The Governor had, however, read the
"hole of the proceedings of the court-martial, and was fully
acquainted with the facts therein disclosed; and, acting
t Upon the knowledge he had thus acquired, he felt it his duty
t;3l refuse the application that was then made. Taking,
ern a fair review of the evidence given—that the procla-
mationoj, of martial-law was fully justified according to the
ft:Unions of the most eminent military and civil authorities—
sidering that these stories of severity and violence were
tt
notthat
corroborated; and that Mr. Selby had distinctly stated
all complaints made were heard and redressed—con-
Couringthat the members of the Legislative and Executive
ncil and that the military authorities had all concurred
• the one opinion—namely, the necessity for martial law
ennsideeing, too, that during the whole time of its continu-
ance there never was any direct representation made to the
? nrernor from any civil or military person that the con-
,lnaance of this law was violent or unjustifiable, he thought
back
there never was a case which the Governor could fall
'Jack upon with more confidence than upon this case. The
roduet of n
his Noble Friend Earl Grey was
the proceedings
at had taken place under martial law in Ceylon. He (Mr.
;Lewes) thought the House must be struck with this circum-
Znce—when the Honourable Member for Inverness had first
Pt his resolution upon the table of the House he spoke of the
Unqualified approbation" expressed by Earl Grey to Lord
);rrington, whereas the resolution that was now before them
• the word " unqualified" left out of it. The Hon.
Zernber, by this change in the wording of his resolution,
ir'ast be convinced that his first resolution was erroneous.
`,•(e(Mr. Hawse) was not, however, going to take refuge
;`,Oder that omission; but he was prepared, to the best of his
to defend the part taken by his Noble Friend in the
fatter, as being consistent with all former precedents. IVhen
k
Secretary of State receives an account from any of the co-
ii)niea that an insurrection has broken out, what did the House
think was the course he should take under the circumstances ?
then he receives such an account from the governor, and
leader e hears the troops had acted well under their proper
s—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 ineurrec-
o
;lon, in order that he might write his approval or condor:ma-
n of the conduct of the governor? Such a course would
'ertainly be not consistent with the practie heretfore ur-
abed by a Secretary of State. W henever c
similaro accounts
a
been received the Secretary of State for the time
_ukhg always answered immediately his approval of the
„
nduct of the governor, if the dispatch of the latter
km found to be distinct and clear upon the
Acts. But did such a letter necessarily cover
!Very act done during the time of the rebellion ? It was
onpossible 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
14th October, 1823 ; it was answered in a similar spirit on
the 23d of October. The case of Jamaica was a remarkable
roera redth as e
0
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 couldear
,blLe°arn,
ap-
proving ()revery act done there--("u
eition)—and yet the language used there was very much the
same as that of his Noble Friend. In the case of Demerara,
a dispatch was received on the 14th of October, which was
answered on the 21st of the same month. Then came the
case of New Zealand, when his Right lion. Friend opposite
(Mr. Gladstone) was in office. That Right lion. Gentleman
did not fail to send out to the Governors General the appro-
bation of her Majesty of the conduct then pursued by the
authorities. Ile did not wait to inquire whether there was
any unnecessary severity or bloodshed there. The dis-'
patch conveying the news to the Government here was re-
ceived on the 25th of June, 1846, and it was answered by
the Itight.Honourable Gentleman on the 29th of June. In
the case of New Zealand there was a considerable loss of
life, and subsequently martial law was proclaimed,. Surely
it never could be contended that the Right Hon. Gentleman
by his dispatch ahould be held responsible for all that had
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.
Ile 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, on
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—wen 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 LordTorrington was justified, in the course he felt
it his duty, in the emergency of the case, to take. The way
in which the press was employed constantly to-vilify 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 any
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 same day, of an entirely opposite character, to two dif-

ferent individuals—namely, Sir E. Tennent and Mr. Weds- t
house. Now, there was no foundation for such a charge.
The letter dated the 3d of May, to Sir E. Tennent, was one
of the most plain, common-place notes that could possibly
have been written. There was no authority whatever for
saying that there was a coincidence in the dates of the two
letters sent to Sir E. Tennent and Mr. Wodehouse. He
asked them to look fairly at the evidence, and hew many
Members of that House would look at it ? He was afraid not
mauy of those who were prepared to vote upon it. By
that evidence it would be seen that in no one single instance
had Lord Torrington acted without the consent of the civil
and military authorities; that in no one instance had
Lord Torrington acted in opposition to public opinion—
(Hear, hear)—and when he left Ceylon he was
addressed by nearly all the planters. An Honour-
able Member had thrown great discredit upon addresses
of this description, but the remarks of that Honourable
Gentleman led him to believe that he had not attended
much to colonial subjects. Lord Torrington was
addressed by the merchants almost unanimously, and the
name of the first person whose signature was attached to it
was known to him, and he could say that signature alone
rendered the address of great value. Lord Torrington was
also addressed by the iloman Catholic bishops, to which ad-
dress perhaps some Hon. Gentlemen would not on that ac-
count attach much value.—(Hear, hear.) But it, with
others, served to show that Lord Torrington's Government
had met with the 'approbation of all classes, civil and mili-
tary.--(Hear, hear.) Ile did then confidently appeal to the
House, and ask whether any grounds had been laid for pass-
ing a censure not only upon Lord Torrington, but also upon
every subordinate officer who had taken part in these trans-
actions; and whether there were any grounds for cen-
suring the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial De-
partment, for merely acting in strict conformity with what
he believed to be the discharge of his duty.—( Hear,
hear.) He was confident that there were no grounds to
justify the course now adopted, and that the good sense and
good feeling of the House would alike induce it to negative
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Inver-
ness-shire.--(Hear.)

Mr. GLADSTONE said the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down had handled the subject with his usual
ability, and with a degree of fairness that did him honour.
It was refreshing to hear the Hon. Gentleman speak after
the display of personalities which had occurred in regard to
this case. Much had been said with respect to the per-
sonalities directed towards Lord Torrington. But Lord Tor-
rington was a Peer of the realm, and was backed up by the
Government, and was, therefore, well able to defend himself.
But what was to be said of the personalities that were directed
against those who could not defend themselves? The Right
Hon. Gentleman then complained of the injudicious course
pursued by the Honourable and Learned Member for Cork
( Mr. Sergeant Murphy), who appeared in that House the
representative of Lord Torrington—( Hear, hear)—by vilify-
ing the character of all the persons in the '
colony from the
Chief Justice down to Mr. Selby, because they had expressed
themselves in opposition to the policy pursued by Lord Tor-
rington. He contended that Mr. Wodehouse was justified
in consequence of the attack:made upon him in the Committee
in producing the letters which he had received from Lord
Torrington in justification of his conduct. It had been stated
that the object of this motion was to cast censure on Lord
Torrington, but he wished to show what was the intention of
the present discussion. He contended that they were now
discussing the conduct of the Government, and not that of
Lord Torrington, and would not, therefore, allude to the dis-
patch of Earl Grey, under the circumstances of the time, be-
cause that would be most ungenerous; but what he meant to
allude to was, that Earl Grey had sent that dispatch without
any knowledge of the circumstances of the state of the colony.
He hoped that the House would bear in mind the argu-
ments of the Honourable Member for Honiton (Sir James
Weir Hogg), and reflect on his arguments, which he should
rather call assertions, when he stated that this motion
was especially intended to condemn the Secretary for the
Colonies; but he should say no, for the object of this
motion was to condemn the entire of the Government.
Whilst be admitted that there were some injuries, such as the
burning of a few houses, yet he would not call that rebel-
lion. At the same time he did not mean to quarrel about
the meaning of the word, and he would add, that that act
was caused through excitement, and it was known to the
House that this so-called rebellion lasted only two days. He
should now state that he did not mean to complain of the
policy of the Ceylon Governor with respect to martial law,
but what he complained of wae, the undue continuance of
that law. He assured the House that he did not wish to
excuse rebellion by any means, but he considered that there
were no grounds to show that rebellion existed in 1848.
He should nest say that he admitted that the new taxes
were not the cause of the rebellion, if rebellion it could be
called, but he should say that there were several other mo-
tives-to excite the people, such as the restrictions placed un-
justly on their religion. He did not mean to discuss the
right of their religion, but he should say that good faith
should be upheld, and that all obligations entered into with
the natives of Ceylon should be duly fulfilled. He therefore
asked, was not the infringement on their religious feelings
sufficient to excite the indignation of those people? and in
addition to that he should say, that the sacrifice of property
was also a breach of faith, and that was shown by the evi-
dence of Lord Torrington, as could be seen in the Blue-book,
where he stated that it was right to restore to the people
those religious rights which they have so long enjoyed by
prescriptive privileges. He consequently argued that those
deprivations were sufficient to excite the indignation of those '
people ; for such they did not endure under former Governors,
as the antecedent Governors always acted in such a manner
that, instead of alienating the good feelings of the prieste,
the people, and the chiefs, they made them more attached to
the British Government. He contended that there was no
proof of discontent among the majority of the people. He
considered that a distinction should be drawn between an un-
due assumption of power and an unjust assumption of
power, because he did not mean to argue against the pro-
priety of •introducing martial law, but he certainly felt
bound to speak against the prolongation of that law, for
which he considered that there was no justification what-
ever; and he should say, in addition to that, Lord Torring-
ton's account did not in the least justify his conduct. He was
not aware of a single testimony given before the Committee
in favour of prolonging the existence of martial law.
The Honourable Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies had quoted Colonel Braybrooke as an authority, for
the having recourse to martial law in the first instance, but
then Colonel Braybrooke was against prolonging it. The
Chief Justice of Ceylon was of the same opinion,and in fact
not one witness could be produced who could say that it was
at all necessary to continue it for so long a period. 'The
Hon. Gentleman quoted an address from the Legislative
Council of Ceylon to Lord Torrington' where they thanked
him for the prompt manner in which he had put down the
rebellion, but they did not in that address say one word as
to the propriety of keeping martial law in force so long.
There was therefore actually nothing in the evidence which
could justify its being continued so long. The rebellion, if
it was to be called a rebellion, was suppressed on the 13th of
July, not a man in arms having been seen after that date,
and yet for more than two months after that period, that
monstrous state of things which martial law necessarily gave
rise to was allowed to continue. On that ground, therefore,
on the ground that martial law was prolonged for a longer
period than it ought to have been, he conside'red that the
Government was liable to censure, inasmuch as they had
made themselves responsible for the acts of Lord Torring-
ton. So much, therefore, for that part of the resolutions
which referred for the prolongation of martial law. There
was, however, another point, and that was the only one
with which he would trouble the House. It was a most
serious and important one, because even the prolongation of
martial law would not have induced him to vote for a motion
of this kind, had there not taken place, under the exercise
of that law, a great sacrifice of human life, and most unjust
interference with the personal rights of the inhabitants.
How did the House stand as regarded those military execu-
tions which had taken place at Ceylon ? (Hear, hear.)
When Government affirmed the proceedings of Lord Tor-
rington in Ceylon, he affirmed that they put themselves into
his place. That Noble Lord had been recalled from his go-
vernment, and the House had, therefore, nothing to do with
him, unless they preferred an impeachment against him,
and he supposed no one would talk of that.—(Hear, hear.)
The question, therefore, for the House of Cammons to con-
sider was, whether Government, having placed themselves
in the room of Lord Torrington, the House would place them-
selves in the position of the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
The Government had taken upon them the responsibility of
Lord Torrington, the question was, whether the House
would take upon it the responsibility of Government. What.
he complained of was, the execution of 18 men, on the ground
of their having taken part in this rebellion, after it was sup-
pressed, and during which not a single life had been taken.
The defence on the part of the Government was, that the re-
bellion was fostered and instigated by the priests,the chiefs,
and the headmen; but while there was but one hief put to
death. [An Hoer. MEMBER...-" Thera was no chief put to
death."]wasthen b
uVtery oneveperlile,
seth aptuwt at
os the
tbhe,t t earn
dfo rs
ehvi se
rcaals
he .e a
ITinh eerne,
while the great majority of those executed were members of
the commonalty, of the lowest class, who were the mere
dupes of those chiefs, priests, and headmen ; and there was
not an instance on record where, in the case of a rebellion,
the mere tools of fetose who fostered it were executed,
while the greater portion of those parties who were really
guilty were allowed to go free. That was an act which
he considered was not justifiable. No doubt it had
been done in haste, and under much excitement ; but it
was so pregnant with fatal consequences to the character
and fame of this country, as well as to matters affecting
the obedience of the subject in these colonies, that he
thought it was the duty of the House to affirm the
motion of his Honourable Friend.--(Hear, hear.) There
had been a useless sacrifice of human life in his opinion, and
no desire on the part of Honourable Mot lbers either to turn
out or retain a Government, could justify them in refusing
to vote, or in giving any vote on the matter, except that
which, after a full co nsideration of all the circumstances
connected with the ca se, they should consider to be in har-
mony with truth and justice, and such as would be for the
maintenance of the ho nour and safety of the country.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would not long in-
trude on the attendees of the House at this late hour. He
would, he confessed, :neve considerable difficulty in doing so,
even should he feel inclined, from the total want of evi-
dence which had beet a adduced by the other side in support
of the motion.—(Er.ear, hear.) He had anticipated that
some good grounds v could be adduced for making 'these
charges, but what w as the most extraordinary thing con-
nected with the quest ion was, that the Right 'Honourable
Gentleman who had just sat down, at the close of the second
ocnfoiguphrostle'iscoyn._tie
debatel upon had altogether shifted the grounds of
attack.—(Hear, a (Hear, her.) He was not unprepared for that
part of' the Right Honourable Gentleman, as he
had on former occasions seen him adopt that shifting system
(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman now said
that what be object ad to was the prolongation of martial-
law, but more panic ailarly the sacrifice of human life which
was caused by'the trials which took place under that law.
Now
he thought they, had beaten them on both these points.
—(Levauidngehteeen add) He 'tied taken some pains to examine into
the uceiel before the Committee, and he could find
h
inequiry
ner nothingdvueei decision
iwoht
nahe
was
uurs
peun justifyobdtujodertcshtt
eoquestion
drtuth
himselfhda judicial
eea
vlcoei
uhurayggr.
hugni
masterer
asytu.ooownTfhl
hyha
otve,
heamegn
taacdavtaktbes eeeyrn.
judicialts(eh Hye con-
ceived,
oeouia tr
innitakhi:'view of the case, he would take the
Imhiebottesretiyrin.Nogr tao'ppealing to' Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—
(Laughter.) He wi mid ask how many of them had ever
examined into the matter ?-e-(Cries of " Oh, oh," and
" Divide, divide.") Hon. Gentlemen might cry " Divide."
but he would take -the liberty of telling them that before
they came to decide upon a question of this kind, so inti-
mately affecting the character of two public functionaries, they
ought to make theemselves masters of the subject, and he
did not hesitate to ,say that this was a question upon which
it was almost impos Bible for them to come to a decision on
.the evidence before them.—(Qaestion, question.) He did
think that in a que: ttion of so grave a nature, such interrup-
tions were unseeml y.—(Hear.) He said that in a question
of this nature, it we s necessary for Honourable Gentlemen
on that side of the I louse to make themselves matters of it.
—(Cries of " Oh, of i," and" Which side ?") There could be
UP mistake about t he side of the House—he meant those
Lien. Members wh o came down to vote for the motion with-
out having examined the nature and facts of the case, and
which, before conetemning two public servants, they were
bound to make themselves master of.—(Cries of " Oh, ch.")
The case was referred to a Select Committee, which was, no
doubt, the proper coprse; but after all the evidence which

had been adduced before that Committee, they came to the
conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence before
them "to enable them to come to a decision on the case,
and there the matter rested. How, then, was it--possible
for the House of Commons to decide upon the case, when,
after all the evidence adduced on the subject,
there did not seem to be any sufficient to in-
duce the Committee to decide one way or the other.
Further evidence was required by the Committee, and also
by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and other
Members of that House. The Committee did not feel them-
selves in a condition to decide this question, and how could
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had not had similar oppor-
tunities of coming to a decision on this question vote upon
it with any degree of confidence? The Council of the Go-
vernor did not, even so late as October, disapprove of the
proclamation of martial law, and, on the contrary, they had
approved of all his measures. The Legislative Council in
1849 addressed the Governor, and ascribed the suppression
of the outbreak to the energetic measures of the Executive
Government. They had the general command, the Execu-
tive Council, and the Legislative Council, all approving
of the proceedings of the Governor. Even Mr. Selby, in
1848, concurred with the Executive and Legislative
Council in approving of the measures of the Government.
The martial taw was only continued for about ten weeks.
The Governor, by declaring martial law so early as he did,
suppressed the rebellion, and was enabled to apprehend
the pretender. In the former rebellion, in 1818, martial
law was continued for an entire year, and it was followed
by scenes which did not occur in the latter rebellion,
in consequence of the energetic measures of the Execu-
tive. Now let them turn to the resolution before the House.
That resolution was utterly at variance with the evidence
before the House. The resolution asserted that eighteen
persons were executed, and 140 transported and otherwise
punished. Now, what would the House say when he told them
that from the official lists before him it appeared that the
whole number executed, transported, and otherwise pu-
nished on account of this rebellion was only sixty--four?—
(Hear, hear.) They said that 178 persons had been tried
and convicted in consequence of this rebellion. That was
not the fact. The number was as he had stated, and the
rest were made up of persons who had been imprisoned, con-
victed, and corporally punished for offences not connected
with the rebellion.-;Hear.) The Hon.. Gentleman having
the list—the official list—before him, did it not become a
public prosecution to to frame his resolution as to be con-
sistent with truth ?—(Hear)—but the error of the statement
of the Hon. Member for Inverness-shire was mild in com-
parison with that of the Hon. Member for Montrose. He
had actually stated that 380 persons were tried and punished
in consequence of these disturbances. He owned that he
could not comprehend his figures.—e Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) There was no more pretence for saying
that 3to persons were tried and punished in consequence
of that rebellion than there was for searing that
380,000 persons were tried and punished.—(Hear, hear.)
There had been various insurrections. The affections of the
natives were not concentrated upon their British rulers. The
chiefs were dissatisfied, and in 1818 they broke out into re-
bellion, which they with difficulty suppressed. After refer-
ring to the revolt in 1834, he reminded the House that there
was another revolt in 1842, in which they had difficulty. All
classes of the population were dissatisfied, because Government
had been bringing under cultivation the jungles and forests,
and thereby limiting the range of the cattle. The priests
were also dissatisfied, because the Government, as a Christian
Government, could not give countenance to their idolatrous
worship. But, above all, the people disliked the yoke of the
stranger, they were opposed to foreign domination, and
hence the dissatisfaction and the successive attempts at
revolt which were repeatedly made. It was idle to say
that taxation was at the bottom of the late revolt. —(Hear,
hear.) Lord Torrington had reduced, during his admi-
nistration, the expenditure of the colony by 95,0001. per
annum, and the three principal taxes which affected the
lihndien population amounted only to sift shillings a year.
With the experience of the past, was it not the duty of the
Government to take all these circumstances into' considera-
tion, and to look to the spirit of the people and the causes
which, in reality, operated in producing the revolt. The
people who engaged in the revolt amounted to 3,000 men,
and they had the testimony of Sir Herbert Maddox, a man
of great experience in India, and who knew the population,
who stated that the revolters amounted to 6,000 men, and
they had it upon good authority that they were in possession
of sixty thousand stand of arms. These inen would not
stand against our soldiers, and they soon fled, spreading
dismay throughout the disaffected districts, and in that way
the revolt soon disappeared. If Lord Torrington had not
taken the means which be successfully used to put down the
revolt, where, then, would have been the measure of re-
probation against the Government on the part of those
who now blamed the Noble Lord for the energy he exhibited
in the difficult position in which he was placed. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman then referred to the ,
course pursued by Lord Grey, and which had been com-
mented on so freely by some Honourable Members who had
taken part in the debate.—(Hear, hear.) Lord Grey upon
being made acquainted with all the circumstances, did not
say that he absolutely approved of all the measures that
had been adopted, but that, taking into account all the
circumstances—taking into account the parties upon whose
information Lord Torrington had to depend, and the danger
to the public peace and the safety of the population, Lord
Grey did exprers his opinion that under all these
circumstances Lord Torrington had done that which by
sense of duty and the serious difficulties he had to contend
with, seemei to render incumbent.—(Hear, hear.) He e the
Attorney-General) thought they ought not to adopt the
course counselled on the last night by the Honourable
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who, not content with
addressing himself to the matter before them, travelled into
the proceedings before the Committee, and said that let-
ters had not been produced, and that he believ d
they had been burned.—(Hear, hear.) He thought such a
charge was one which ought not to have been made by the
Honourable Member for Montrose. The Noble Lord had at
once met it by a powerful and unqualified denial. He had
addressed a letter to Earl Grey, which had been placed in
his hands, and which he would now read to the House. (The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman here read the letter of
the Noble Lord, in which, after referring to the statement
made by Mr. Hume, he proceeded to say that, in justice to
his own character, he begged to contradict the statement of
the Honourable Member.) No correspondence, he added,
had been burned, and none withheld, with the es.ceptiou,
as we understood, of one letter.—(Hear, hear.) It had
been said that the attack was in reality on the Colonial-
office, but could any man justify the making of that attack
through the reputation of another?—(Hear, hear.)
Political warfare, like the warfare of civilized na-
tions, had its limits and its laws, and he could maintain
that they were bound as men to lose sight of everything ex-
cept truth, and that they ought only to pass condemnation
where it was justly merited and-deserved.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord lIOTHAM, having given his constant attention to
the business of the Select Committee, and having been
absent only on two or three occasions from the commence-
ment to the close of the proceedings, had been particularly
anxious, if an opportunity had been afforded to him, of going
somewhat at length into the subject. And especially as it
was his misfortune not to concur with any of those who had
taken a leading part on the one or the other side of this de-
bate, he being the more anxious to state the extent to which
he considered either Lord Grey or Lord Torrington to be
obnoxious to such censure as this motion proposed to throw
upon them. But as he felt that he could not ask the House
now to indulge him at that hour with sufficient time for that
purpose, he must content himself with fulfilling the very
minor object of setting himself right with the House in a
matter in which injustice had been cast upon him by the
Hon. Member for Inverness, and he only hoped that he
should be justified in the eyes of the House for the course he
was about to take.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Inverness, when alluding to the proceedings of the Commit-
tee, stated that he (Lord Hotham) appeared to him to :have
adopted a great deal of ingenuity to exempt the Secretary of
State for the Colonial Department from all blame. The
Hon. Member hat alluded to a conversation, or rather a
question, regarding the draft report. His (Lord Hotham's)
impression had been that the question had been put by the
Hon. Member for Montrose, and he had given no answer.
The recal of Lord Torrington was not the measure, but only
one of the measures which he had in his mind when drawing
out the report. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Beanie)
had further made a statement of a very grave description,
viz., that the report was the result of an understanding with
the Government. To an understanding there must be two
parties, and he could assure the House that he had never
spoken to any person on the subject of the report except to
the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He felt that he
could not vote for the resolutions of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Baillia), because by doing so he would not only be con-
demning Lord Torrington, but also individuals who had never
been before accused, and had not had any opportunity ofjus-
tifying their acts.—(Divide.)

Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot allow the debate to close
without explaining shortly the views which her Majesty's
Government have taken of the conduct of Lord Torrington
in Ceylon, and of the motion of the Hon. Member for Inver-
ness-shire. In so doing it will not be necessary for me to go
through those points which have been argued with great
ability on one side anti the other with, respect to particular
acts of Lord Torrington. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire
said last night that if the Government, instead of recalling
Lord Torrington on the ground of his incapability to pre-
serve harmony among the official servants of the Crown in
the colony, had recalled him with an expression of disappro-
bation of the continuanee of martial law and of the execu-
tions that had taken place under that law, he should have
been satisfied, and should not have concurred in this motion.
The Right Hon, Gentleman the Member for the University
of Oxford, in speaking to-night, said that he was willing
to admit that there was an insurrection in Ueyion—that
10,000 men were in arms against the Queen's Govern-
ment and the Queen's authority, attempting to set up an-
other authority in its place; that the proclamation of mar-
tial law in the first instance was a fit method of meeting that
insurrection, and that so far he did not blame the Govern-
ment. He laid his whole blame upon the continuance of
martial law and upon the number of executions that had
taken place. Now, Sir, it is obvious that this question
affects in the first place Lord Torrington, in the next place
Lord Grey, and in the next place the whole of her Majesty's
Government. Now I must beg the House to consider the
circumstances of Lord Torrington's administration. He was
sent out to a colony in which Sir E. Tennent described all
the civil servants as being in such a state of dissension that
it was very difficult to obtain any aid from them. He found
that the finances were in such a state that the expenditure
exceeded theincome by 80,0001. At the same time he was
instructed to adopt an entirely new method of taxation.
Lord Torrington carried into effect his instructions. He
reduced the expenditure by more than the sum which it had
exceeded the revenue—he complied with his instructions
with regard to taxation (and into the wisdom of which it
is unnecessary to enter now; it is sufficient to say that such
were his instructions)—the result was, that at the end of
three years he left a surplds in the treasury, and had the
satisfaction to reflect that in the course of ten weeks he had
not only suppressed the rebellion, but had completely
eradicated the seeds of it; that he left a colony prosperous
which he had found embarrassed; that he left a people
tranquil which he had found on the verge of rebellion; and
that he handed over the government to his successor in such
a manner as to make, his successor declare that he was in-
debted to the conduct of Lord Torrington, which was in
in fact high praise of that government.—( Hear, hear.) Now
that is a plain description of the government of Lord Tor-
rington. It is a description of that which was done by a
person inexperienced in the previous government of any
colony, and who found no assistance, but great obstacles from
pt
ehrelyd iasps
pe no
isni otne
ds nt
o'h
ai csl
sprevailedx ae
cmuot
invge. those
ewa hr
hweearre.
)p r o
am sure I may be excused for saying that an Hon. Gentleman,
in bringing before this House a motion with respect to Lord
Torrington's government of Ceylon, should take the whole of
that government into consideration, and that if he meant
that resolution to be carried he should state what the result '
of the whole of that government was, and should not have '
fastened on one or two points on which he thought that ob •
jection could be made, and have passed opinions upon those
points and those only. But what is the blame to be imputed
to Lord Torrington with respect to tnat insurrection ? Now,
be it observed that the news of that insurrection came sud-
denly upon the Governor; he immediately sent for Colonel
Faver, who had served in the former insurrection, and to
whose discretion and experience he might well listen. He
acted according to that opinion. He immediately saw the gene-