§ THE EARL OF ROMNEYsaid, that seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies in his place he desired to ask him a Question, on a subject with respect to which a great many persons felt a deep interest—he meant the condition of Jamaica. There were few persons in the country who, while anxious to see law and order in the colony supported, were not also anxious that in support of law and order nothing should be done at all injurious to the rights of any of Her Majesty's subjects. There were, he was aware, certain other persons so prejudiced on the matter that no answer that could be given would be satisfactory to them. It was, therefore, most desirable that they should have some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that in whatever might be done their course of conduct should be such as to give the fullest confidence to Her Majesty's subjects that right and justice would be carefully respected on both sides. He 1889 hoped, therefore, that some statement would be made on the part of the Government which would indicate the course of policy that was likely to be pursued in this matter. What he wished to know was this—Whether Her Majesty's Government agreed in the main with the views of the late Ministry on this question, and whether his noble Friend could state what steps had been taken, or would probably be taken, in reference to the state of affairs in Jamaica?
THE EARL OF CARNARVONThe Question which my noble Friend (the Earl of Romney) has asked me refers to a matter of the most painful interest. No man who has at all looked into the circumstances of the case can doubt the very grave necessity which rested upon those in authority to adopt the most vigorous measures to repress the disorders. On the other hand, it is equally clear that there have been a few cases of undoubted cruelty, some cases of undoubted oppression, and some of undoubted injustice. At the same time, I must say that it is very difficult to form an accurate judgment at this distance, and with the comparatively insufficient materials which we have before us; because, bulky as is the Report of the Commissioners, the evidence is such that it is exceedingly difficult for us here at home to deal with it, or to know how fairly and equally to apportion the blame among those to whom blame is due. In the first place, the evidence is of a very conflicting nature. Making all possible allowance for exaggeration and misconception, there has been undoubtedly a great deal of very hard swearing and a great deal of perjury. I quite agree with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor in office (Mr. Cardwell) that the heartburnings, the irritation, and the angry feelings consequent on what has taken place ought, for the sake of the colony, as soon as possible to be put an end to. At the same time, there is no use in denying that very great injustice has been done, and in many cases I do not hesitate to say that very great blame appears to me to be due to those who encouraged it. There are three classes of persons to whom that blame is due—first of all, the naval officers; secondly, the military officers; and thirdly, the civilians. With regard to the naval officers, speaking generally, I should say that, upon the whole, the amount of excesses chargeable to them is less, perhaps, than affects the other two classes. 1890 At the same time, there are some cases in connection with that service which require investigation, and—though I am not quite sure—I believe they are at this moment under consideration by the Admiralty. With regard to the military officers the case is somewhat different. Their number is larger, the charges against some of them are of a serious nature, and at this moment measures are being taken respecting them. Looking at the Report of the Commissioners, it will be seen that though there are many cases to which they allude, but three persons are designated by name as persons against whom further proceedings should be taken. As to the Commission, I take it that it stands in this position: it was not a court of justice appointed to try these persons—it could not pronounce any verdict upon them or inflict any sentence; it had no authority for this purpose. As far as I understand it, the Commission was in the nature of a grand jury called upon to find whether there were fair grounds against these persons for making further investigation. That, I take it, is the position in which the Commissioners stood as a tribunal. Now it is true that the Commissioners mention several cases, such as those of Colonel Elkington, Colonel Hobbs, who afterwards came to a very untimely end, Captain Hole, Lieutenant Adcock, and one or two others; and I must say that it is impossible to read many of these cases without feeling the deepest pain and regret. I think that the letters to which some of these officers have put their names are indecent and absolutely disgusting. But, as I said before, the Commissioners only alluded to three individuals by name—Provost Marshal Ramsay, Ensign Cullen, and Assistant Staff Surgeon Dr. Morris. With regard to Provost Marshal Ramsay, I believe that he is at this moment standing upon his trial for murder in Jamaica. All further action is therefore precluded, and it would be wrong for me to say anything while these judicial proceedings are pending. As regards Ensign Cullen and Dr. Morris, the question is a very different one. The Commissioners themselves stated that, in spite of conflicting evidence, the conduct of these two persons was of so suspicious a character that they recommended further investigation. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to bring the matter under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, and to submit for his consideration whether it would not 1891 be expedient first of all to try these two persons by courts martial; and secondly, inasmuch as Sir Henry Storks has left the island, and Major General O'Connor, the chief officer in command of the troops, was, unfortunately, implicated more than was desirable, and assumed a very considerable responsibility in many of these transactions, I have felt it my duty to submit for the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief whether it would not be desirable either to remove the courts from the island of Jamaica, or to constitute those courts of officers who would be entirely independent of the recent transactions there. That view has been taken by the Commander-in-Chief, and, consequently, these two persons will be brought to trial before courts martial, taking the precaution which I have ventured to suggest. Lastly, there comes the question of the conduct of the civilians; and here, of course, I feel myself mainly responsible, for I hold this distinct view—that if any colonist suffers from injustice, whatever may be his class, his condition, or his colour, he has a right to redress at the hands of the Colonial Minister in this country. Acting in this sense, I have instructed Sir John Grant, the present Governor of Jamaica, to institute the most searching inquiry in his power in order to ascertain whether there are any civilians whose conduct demands inquiry. In this I simply followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in office (Mr. Cardwell), who had previously given instructions to the same effect; but I thought the subject was of such importance, that I have sent out further instructions urging Sir John Grant to pay particular attention to the subject. And I have such confidence in Sir John Grant as a wise and humane administrator, that while on the one hand he will not, I believe, rake up unnecessarily those smouldering embers which it is for the good of the colony should expire as soon as possible; on the other hand, if there be just cause for investigation, I am sure he will not shrink from it, whatever difficulties may attend that inquiry. I ought to mention further, that as some thirty-five persons are at this moment in confinement in Jamaica under long sentences for the part they took in the insurrection, and as I believe that many of these persons are ignorant people, misled by more designing persons, I have left it to Sir John Grant to report to me whether in 1892 any of those cases the prerogative of mercy may not be fairly and with policy exercised. I am sure that I represent the feeling of Parliament as well as my own when I say I hope it will be found possible to deal with these offenders somewhat more leniently than they have been dealt with in the colony.
My Lords, I should be glad to stop here, but I feel bound, after the Question put to me by my noble Friend, to say a few words further. It is impossible to discuss this question without touching more or less upon the conduct of Mr. Eyre—because, after all, Mr. Eyre was the Governor, and he was responsible for everything which took place. Now, I cannot doubt, on the one hand, that the insurrection was a most serious one, and that the circumstances of the time were very grave. I readily admit the promptitude, the courage, the fearlessness of responsibility which he displayed; but, on the other hand, I am in justice bound to say that these qualities, if they are not accompanied by sound judgment on the part of the person who possesses them, become faults rather than virtues, and are in the nature of a curse rather than a blessing to the colony with the government of which that person is intrusted. This, I think, was the case of Mr. Eyre. I believe he was completely absorbed in the one paramount idea of crushing out this insurrection and of saving the colony; but he saw only one side of the question—he saw only one half of his duty, and only acted up to that limited portion of his duty. Now, the Governor of a colony is the representative of the Crown, and the first attribute and quality of the Crown is not only justice, but perfect impartiality, and the power of rising above the panic and the apprehensions of the moment. It was by this quality that Lord Canning, when placed under circumstances somewhat similar, though undoubtedly much more momentous, deserved and obtained the admiration of his country, by rising above the prejudices and passions of the moment and by preventing the persons who surrounded him from being carried away by those feelings. It is to the fatal want of this quality in Mr. Eyre that we may trace at least half of the mischief which arose after the outbreak through the unnecessary prolongation of martial law and the many excessive severities which took place during that period. Courts martial form at all times a very 1893 exceptional and a very deplorable tribunal. No one will doubt this who considers their constitution, and the youth, the ignorance of the first principles of law, and very often the prejudice, combined with the absolutely unlimited discretion, of their members. Perhaps your Lordships may recollect how, not quite a century ago, Lord Cornwallis, in the Correspondence which has been recently published, has left on record his bitter feeling of the atrocities carried on in 1793 by courts martial under his own eyes, and with hardly any power on his part to repress them. As courts martial were in 1793 so they are in 1866, because the objections to them depend much on the inherent nature of the tribunal itself. I will not attempt to enter into some of the legal technicalities and inquire whether or not courts martial, if it be not a solecism to say so, are legal. There may be cases of dire necessity, when it is absolutely imperative to proclaim martial law, and to administer it by court martial; but, in such cases, there are several rules which ought to be observed. In the first place, martial law ought not to be allowed to continue one single day or hour beyond the time which is absolutely necessary. In the next place, a caution should be given to those who administer those courts—not indeed in the shape of a code of minute rules, because that would be impossible — but by a general instruction. The officers should feel that they will be held accountable for any excessive acts of authority on their part. Just in proportion as they are completely free to act, so, I think, they ought to be jealously watched, and, if necessary, controlled and checked by their superior officers. Unfortunately, this was not the case in Jamaica. In the panic and confusion of the moment these safeguards were neglected, and no doubt very serious consequences resulted from that neglect. It has been said, further, that martial law in Jamaica was complicated by this peculiar circumstance—that there was an Act in the colonial statute book which, while it certainly expressed the opinion that courts martial ought not to be established except in cases of grave necessity, nevertheless did seem to encourage the Governor to proclaim martial law, under circumstances somewhat less grave than should justify such a course. No doubt Mr. Eyre understood that he had no option but to continue that Act in operation for 1894 a full month; but that was a great mistake. It will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to look closely into this point, and first to see whether similar Acts do not exist in some of the West Indian colonies, of which I cannot speak positively now; and second, to revise them and bring them more into conformity with our idea of what they ought to be. I am further considering the expediency of drawing up a short and simple code of regulations for the instruction and guidance of Governors who may be placed in circumstances similar to those in which Mr. Eyre was placed. I do not think you can provide for every single case; but you may lay down landmarks and principles which shall guide Governors under such exceptional circumstances. Much has been said respecting the case of Mr. Gordon — I do not wish to say anything about it, and for this reason, that I believe it is a most terrible case, and one that is indefensible. The evidence upon which he was hung was insufficient to have convicted him. At the same time, I wish to say there can be no doubt that both Mr. Eyre, who accepts the whole responsibility, and the officers who acted in subordination to him, acted with most complete bonâ fides in the matter. Personal feelings and irrelevant considerations were entirely absent from their minds; and, however mistaken they were, they believed they were performing their duty. Therefore, the proposal which is sometimes put forward, to indict Mr. Eyre on the charge of murder, seems to me to be one of the most preposterous proposals that could be made. Whatever offence Mr. Eyre has committed, murder is certainly not the offence that can be charged against him, and I believe such a charge would be utterly repugnant to the common sense of Englishmen. I think Mr. Eyre has suffered severely indeed; his recall has been as heavy a blow as could possibly be inflicted upon him. Looking to his position and his antecedents, I believe that blow has fallen on him severely. As regards the state of Jamaica now there are great difficulties to be solved; but I have every confidence in Sir John Grant, than whom, I believe, there was no one more competent to grapple with those difficulties, and whose appointment as Governor is, I believe, the best that could have been made.
§ EARL RUSSELLI concur with the 1895 opinion so well expressed by the Commissioners, with regard to the trial and execution of Mr. Gordon. I understand the noble Earl to say that he, too, concurs in it. I only wish to say further, with regard to the late Government, that we all thought the Report made by the Commissioners was not only an able Report, but that it judged impartially the conduct of Governor Eyre and of all the persons whose conduct it dealt with. I believe that, both in the praise the Commissioners gave Governor Eyre, for the promptitude and extreme readiness with which he put down an incipient insurrection, and in the blame they cast upon him, the Commissioners were equally just, fair, and impartial. I quite agree with the noble Earl that there are not any grounds for accusing Mr. Eyre of murder; but, at the same time, we cannot help deploring the undue severity that was used.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONAs far as I understand the verdict of the Commissioners respecting Mr. Eyre, I entirely accept it and concur in it. I understand it to be this—that Gordon was not proved to be guilty of complicity in this insurrection, and that he was executed upon evidence which was wholly insufficient. In that opinion I entirely concur.
LORD HOUGHTONI wish to ask the noble Earl, whether he has entertained the question of giving compensation to any of the suffering families?
THE EARL OF CARNARVONThe question of compensation involves this point—that compensation must be paid either from the Consolidated Fund or from Colonial revenues. The place for discussing the question of paying compensation out of the Consolidated Fund would be rather the other House of Parliament than your Lordships' House. I should doubt whether this country would be disposed to make a grant on this account. Of the Colonial revenues I can give only a poor account. It will require the utmost efforts on the part of Sir John Grant to make both ends meet; the revenue has declined, and probably it will be many years before he will be in a position to make any considerable allowance from that source. It is also to be borne in mind that the question of compensation is a most difficult one. Fraudulent claims of all kinds are sure to be put forward the moment you announce that either the Colonial or the Imperial Government will pay compensation; and it would require 1896 the greatest sagacity to distinguish those that ought to be satisfied. I should be sorry to debar myself absolutely from entertaining this question. Much must depend upon the reports of Sir John Grant. I shall be equally unwilling to make any promise that compensation shall be given. I wish, indeed, to leave myself entirely free to adopt the course that may seem best.