CEYLON.

HC Deb 06 February 1850 vol 108 cc417-58

MR. HAWES

moved for the reappointment of the Select Committee of last Session to inquire into the grievances complained of in Ceylon.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the grievances complained of in Ceylon, in connexion with the administration and government of that Colony, and to report their opinion whether any measures can be adopted for the re-dress of any grievances of which there may be shown just reason to complain; and, also, whether any measures can be adopted for the better administration and government of that Dependency.

MR. HUME

wished to know why British Guiana had been left out of the Motion this year?

MR. HAWES

said, that the Committee of last Session having made a report on that colony, he was not aware of any reason for instituting further inquiries respecting it.

MR. BAILLIE

Sir, before the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies is agreed to, I wish to trespass for a short time on the attention of the House. Perhaps I ought to apologise for alluding, in the first place, to a matter in some degree personal to myself, but as it affects the privileges of this House, I hope I shall be excused for doing so. Among the papers presented to the House by the Colonial Office, with reference to the colony of British Guiana, there are two despatches from the Governor of that colony, in which the Governor and also the Attorney General of the colony, take upon themselves to criticise a speech said to have been delivered by me in this House, and which they allege to have quoted from the Times newspaper. The Governor of British Guiana not only charges me with inaccuracy, but goes so far as to say that the charges made by me in this House as to the official salaries in British Guiana must have been made with the intention of deceiving. That is a grave charge to make against a Member of this House; but it is a still graver charge against Her Majesty's Government; for it so happens that the statement made by me on the occasion referred to, with respect to the official salaries in British Guiana, was made from a document furnished by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies. It would never have occurred to me to charge the Colonial Office with a wilful intention to deceive. I should never for a moment have supposed that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would have willingly misled any person. But Governor Barkly has made this charge, and I suppose that he must be better acquainted with the practice of that department of the Government than I can be. The facts are these. A friend of mine, a proprietor in British Guiana, was anxious to ascertain the mode in which the revenue of that colony was disposed of. He had no means of obtaining the information except by application to the Colonial Office. I wrote a letter, therefore, to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies, requesting to know whether, as a proprietor in British Guiana, and as one having an interest in the affairs of the colony, he would have any objection to furnish me with a correct return of all official salaries in the colony. An obliging answer was returned, to say that the return should be furnished me; and in process of time I received the document in question. Now, Sir, I was aware myself that there were some not very unimportant inaccuracies in that document; and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies will remember, when I asked him to have that document printed for the use of this House, I stated that I believed it to be inaccurate, and I requested that he would correct certain inaccuracies in it. But what was the hon. Gentleman's answer? Why, that he knew nothing of the inaccuracies; that he had given out the document as he had received it from the colony; that if there were inaccuracies in it, it was not the fault of the Colonial Office, but of the authorities in the colony who furnished it; and that, therefore, he would not take upon himself to alter it. So that I have been accused by the Governor of those blunders and mistakes for which the Governor himself and those acting under him are alone to blame. I must now, Sir, beg leave to call the attention of the House to a breach of privilege which I think has been committed. I wish to know, Sir, whether this House sanctions the practice that speeches made by the Members of this House are to be answered, not by hon. Gentlemen whose official duty it is to answer them in their place in Parliament, but by governors in distant colonies, and that answers should afterwards be published in blue books at the expense of the country? If what I stated was inaccurate, it was the duty of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to correct my misstatement, and expose my answer. If he could not do so, it must be assumed that he is unfit for the situation in the Government he occupies; but we know, however, that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well qualified to discharge the post he fills. But if the hon. Gentleman did nor correct my statement, I think it must be inferred that he knew that what I stated was substantially correct. At all events he knew that the statements I made were made from documents furnished by himself. I have thought it my duty, Sir, to bring this matter before the House, not on account, however, of the paltry attack made against me, although made in terms so gross, but because I think that what I shall state to the House will convince it that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, in his eagerness to make a charge of inaccuracy against me, has only brought disgrace on the department over which he presides. I have thought it my duty to bring this matter under the consideration of the House, because I think the practice of the Colonial Office a most objectionable one, and one which, if persevered in, will lead to great public inconvenience; and, therefore, I hope that some expression on the part of this House will prevent a recurrence of it. But, Sir, before I leave the subject of Guiana, I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies one or two questions with respect to that colony. The House will remember that the hon. Gentleman lost no opportunity, in the last Session of Parliament, of expressing the great satisfaction he had derived from the report of the Guiana Committee. He stated that the report entirely coincided with his own views, and with those of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office; and that he so entirely approved of it that he would send it out to the Governor of Guiana with instructions for him to act upon it. I now ask the hon. Gentleman whether any of the recommendations of that Committee have been acted upon? There were about three recommendations offered in the report, which was certainly as meagre a one as could well be. The first recommendation was, that the salary of the Governor should be reduced. Now, I wish to ask whether that reduction has been effected? The second recommendation was, that a searching inquiry should be instituted with respect to the improper appointments made by the late Governor. I wish also to ask whether that recommendation has been attended to? The third recommendation was, that an alteration should be made in the constitution of British Guiana, but that it should be carried into effect in friendly concert with the colonial authorities. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether that recommendation has been attended to? We are informed that the alteration has been made in the constitution of British Guiana; but, so far from the alteration having been carried out in friendly concert with the colonial authorities, the measure was forced through the Court of Policy by official votes, every one of the elected members voting against it. The measure was carried by the double vote of the Governor, and it became law, and the consequence was that, owing to the violence used, every elected member resigned his seat, and new members had to be elected. I will not. now enter into the merits of that report—there may be another opportunity for doing so; but I say that the measure has been carried in the manner I have described, in direct contempt and violation of the Committee, and notwithstanding that the hon. Gentleman told the House last Session that he had sent out orders that these recommendations should be attended to. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give some explanation as to these circumstances; and I will therefore leave British Guiana, and proceed to the case of Ceylon. The House will remember that the Ceylon Committee made their report at the very close of the last Session of Parliament—at a period when, I think it will be no exaggeration to say, all the independent Members of this House had left town, and there only remained those whose duty, as the official supporters of the Government, it was to bring to a close the routine business of the House. It was under these peculiar circumstances that the noble Lord at the head of the Government thought it becoming to offer a most unusual insult to the Committee, by forcing his official supporters to give a direct negative to the report of the Committee, after I, as chairman, had consented to withdraw it. But even under these peculiar circumstances the noble Lord thought it necessary, at all events, to make a show of fair dealing; and he stated that if the Committee would again reassemble, and name the witnesses it might be necessary to send over to Ceylon for, Her Majesty's Government would take care that those witnesses should be in attendance when Parliament met, and that Committee should be reappointed. In consequence of this statement of the noble Lord, the Committee were induced to reassemble—very much, I am bound to say, against the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, who expressed his opinion that the Committee had been insulted in a way that no Committee had been ever insulted before, and who, therefore, objected to proceeding any further in the business. I thought, I confess, that the vote of that Committee was the vote of the official supporters of Her Majesty's Government, and not the recorded sense of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances I induced the hon. Member for Montrose to proceed, and the Committee reassembled; but it must be obvious to the House that the Committee could not comply with the request which came from the noble Lord. It was impossible that the Committee should name the witnesses. For what were the facts of the case? Certain charges of a grave and serious nature had been made against the Governor of Ceylon by parties residing in the island. It was, therefore, impossible for the Committee to ascertain the truth or falsehood of these charges, without calling on the parties who made them to bring forward evidence to support them. Under these circumstances the Committee certainly named two witnesses, but they were named at random. Feeling their inability to name the required witnesses, they came to the following resolution:— Resolved—That the Chairman be authorised and requested to communicate with Her Majesty's Secretary of State, as to the necessary witnesses to be ordered home to give evidence before the Committee to be appointed in the ensuing Session. That resolution was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and, in proposing it, he explained its object. He told the Committee that the object of it was to enable the chairman to write out to the parties in Ceylon, in order to ascertain from them the names of the witnesses, which should be afterwards communicated to the Secretary of State. That resolulution was agreed to unanimously. The hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonial Office, I have no objection to state, said that it was quite right that the chairman should communicate with the Secretary of State. So that the hon. Member for Montrose and myself were left under the impression and conviction that the course proposed by the Committee had received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. It was under that impression that in the month of November I addressed the following to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies:— The Pré, St. Albans, Nov. 28, 1849. My Lord—In obedience to a resolution of the Committee which sat during the last Session of Parliament to inquire into the grievances of Ceylon and British Guiana, in which I was required to apply to your Lordship to procure the attendance of witnesses from Ceylon, for the further prosecution of the inquiry in the next Session, I beg now to state that it will be necessary, in addition to the testimony of the Queen's Advocate and Captain Watson, named by the Committee, to obtain the evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Braybrooke, and Lieutenant Henderson, of the Ceylon Rifles; of E. S. Waring, Esq., police magistrate, and Mr. John Selby, advocate; and I have therefore to request that your Lordship will have the goodness to order these gentlemen to repair to England without delay, so that they may be able to attend as soon as possible after the meeting of Parliament.—I have the honour, &c. HENRY BAILLIE. In answer to that letter, I received the following communication from the Colonial Office:— Colonial Office, Downing-street, Dec. 3, 1849. Sir—I am directed by Earl Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ult., requesting his Lordship to procure the attendance of the gentlemen you name, as witnesses from Ceylon, in addition to those already required by a resolution of the Committee of Parliament which in the last Session was appointed to inquire into the grievances of Ceylon and British Guiana; and I am to acquaint you that, in pursuance of that resolution, the two gentlemen therein named were directed to repair to England to give evidence, and that his Lordship, with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, informed the Governor of Ceylon that the expense which will be thus occasioned will be defrayed from the funds granted by Parliament to meet the charges of Parliamentary inquiries. But I am to add, that as Lord Grey is not aware that a Parliamentary Committee possesses the power of delegating to its Chairman the power of determining what witnesses are to be called for, his Lordship does not feel himself at liberty, without the express authority of the Committee, to incur the heavy expense which would be occasioned by directing the attendance of additional witnesses whose names you have given.—I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) "HERMAN MERIVALE. After reading that letter, I concluded that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department had not been thoroughly or completely informed as to what had taken place in this House. It did not appear that he was aware of the assurance which had been given that these witnesses should be sent for; and I thought it my duty to address the following letter to the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown:— The Pré, St. Albans, Dec. 9, 1849. My Lord—In the debate which took place upon the report of the Ceylon Committee during the last Session of Parliament, your Lordship, in objecting to the proposal of sending a Commission of Inquiry to Ceylon, stated that the Government would be willing to procure the attendance of any witnesses who might be necessary for the further prosecution of the inquiry. In consequence of that understanding, the Committee passed a unanimous resolution, 'That the chairman be authorised and requested to communicate with Her Majesty's Secretary of State, as to the necessary witnesses to be ordered home to give evidence before the Committee to be appointed in the ensuing Session.' In obedience to that resolution, I addressed a letter on the 28th ult. to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, requesting that Colonel Braybrooke, Lieutenant Henderson, Mr. Waring, and Mr. John Selby, might be ordered to repair to England without delay, so that they might be able to attend the Committee as soon as possible after the meeting of Parliament. In answer to that application, I have received a letter from the Under Secretary for the Colonies, in which I am informed that 'Lord Grey is not aware that a Parliamentary Committee has the power of delegating to its chairman the power of determining what witnesses are to be called for; and his Lordship does not feel himself at liberty, without the express authority of the Committee, to incur the heavy expense which would be occasioned by directing the attendance of the additional witnesses whose names you have given.' I need not point out to your Lordship the very great inconvenience which this delay in sending for the witnesses must of necessity occasion in protracting this painful inquiry. It is not for me to pronounce an opinion upon the course which the Secretary of State for the Colonies may think proper to pursue; but if, as I am informed, Sir E. Tennent and Colonel Drought have been ordered home to give evidence before the Committee, I do not understand upon what ground a different course should be adopted with regard to the witnesses whom, at the desire of the Committee, I have named, and whose attendance cannot be dispensed with. I have no motive in thus addressing your Lordship, but an anxious desire faithfully to discharge the important duty that was entrusted to me; and I deem it to be a part of that duty to remind your Lordship of the understanding that every facility should be afforded by the Government for procuring the testimony of the necessary witnesses from Ceylon.—I have the honour, &c. HENRY BAILLIE. To that letter I received the following reply from the noble Lord:— Pembroke Lodge, Dec. 11, 1849. Sir—When I assented to the proposal that the Committee should name the persons whom it was necessary to summon from Ceylon, and that the Secretary of State should give the necessary orders for their attendance in this country, it was not intimated that the chairman should be en trusted with the sole authority of naming the wit nesses on behalf of the Committee. Lord Grey has therefore properly declined to comply with this delegated authority, which, after all, perhaps, was not meant by the Committee to extend beyond a power of communicating with the Secretary of State, and did not imply a power of giving orders to the Secretary of State, which might occasion great expense and inconvenience.—I have the honour to be," &c. "J. RUSSELL. Now, if I had not expected that every facility for obtaining evidence would be given, I, as well as the hon. Member for Montrose, would have refused to proceed further in this inquiry; but the House must now see that the result of the proceeding of the Government is to protract the inquiry in all probability beyond the present Session of Parliament; as it follows as a matter of course, that if the witnesses are not sent for, we shall not be able to proceed any further with the inquiry. And now, Sir, with regard to the future proceedings of this Committee, I think it right the House should understand that had these witnesses been granted, I should not have addressed a word on this occasion. But as these witnesses have been refused, I do not hesitate to declare my belief—a belief in which I feel not the slightest doubt the hon. Member for Montrose will bear me out—that if this inquiry is fairly and properly carried out, if the witnesses we require are brought to this country, acts of atrocity will be brought to light, compared with which the devices of Field-Marshal Haynau in Hungary, of which we have heard so much from the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, will appear mild and merciful; for in Austria and Hungary no prisoner has been put to death who has not been tried by a tribunal properly constituted according to law, and in which there have been officers of rank presiding, and no sentence on a Hungarian has been carried into effect without the approbation of the commander-in-chief. But what has been the case in Ceylon? In Ceylon very few of the persons put to death were tried before tribunals legally and properly constituted, or comprising the necessary number of officers required by law. In some cases courts-martial in Ceylon had been composed of three officers—a captain and two subalterns—the officers being ignorant of the native language, and yet passing sentence on the accused. In some instances the prisoners were led from the court to the place of execution, where they suffered instant death. [An Hon. MEMBER: Have you confirmation of that?] Those are the facts which have reached me. But compare the two cases—above all, compare the provocation in them. In the case of Hungary, a most bloody and formidable insurrection had been brought to a close, and thousands and tens of thousands of the Austrians had perished. In the ease of Ceylon there had been an unimportant riot, without life or spirit, or any attempt at resistance. Compare the two cases, and then tell me whether I exaggerate when I say that, compared with the proceedings of Ceylon, those of Austria have been mild and merciful. And it is for this House, so long accustomed to hear denunciations against the Austrian Government, to determine whether it is not itself, in its legislative capacity, liable to a charge for having so long tolerated such acts of atrocity to be perpetrated in the dominions of Her Majesty. We have heard much from the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire about the savage proclamations of Field-Marshal Haynau and others. But listen to the proclamation I am about to read—a proclamation of one of Her Majesty's officers in Ceylon, entrusted at the time with the full and responsible power of deciding the question of life and death with respect to the subjects of that colony. The proclamation is as follows:— That unless all those who have held concealed the effects of Golahella Rata Mahatmeya, deliver over to me such property, or give information about the same without delay, such persons shall be killed, and their property confiscated. A. WATSON, Captain commanding. Now, I ask the House, is this a proclamation for the destruction of mad dogs or of human beings? I confess, Sir, when this proclamation was first brought under my notice I was perfectly astounded. I could not believe such a production possible, and thought there must be some mistake. But there is no mistake about the matter. I have in my possession two of the original proclamations signed by Captain Watson's own hand—proclamations which have received the full sanction and cordial approbation of Her Majesty's Government; and those Gentlemen who are so ready to denounce Austria for her acts, are the supporters of that Government. Sir, I do not wish to trespass at too great a length upon the attention of the House. I might enter into descriptions of burnings of villages and confiscations of property, and so forth; but I will pass them over. There is, however, a little episode which I think I must give to the House. The officer who carried martial law into effect in Ceylon, was Lieutenant Colonel Drought. The commander-in-chief, General Smelt, neve having gone into the disturbed districts' thinking, I suppose, that the matter was of too trifling importance to require his personal attendance, although I know not why his presence was not necessary, Lieutenant Colonel Drought was left with two or three superior officers at Kandy; and I will now show in what a reckless manner human life has been sacrificed in the proceedings which took place. Lieutenant Colonel Drought received information, at Kandy, that the Pretender had been taken prisoner; and he immediately despatched an officer (Captain Bird) with instructions to try the prisoner by court-martial, and to have him executed without delay. A court-martial was accordingly held at Kornegalle. Captain Bird sat upon the court-martial, as a junior officer, a superior being present. The man was convicted, and Captain Bird, a junior officer, confirmed the sentence; and to show the sense the court-martial entertained of the heinous offence of appearing as a Pretender, the man, whose name was Dingeralle, was shot within half an hour, and his body, according to the sentence, was hung up upon a tree for four clays. But mark the consequence of this haste. In page 184 of the blue book it will be seen that on the 5th August, Colonel Drought writes to Lord Torrington that the Pretender Dingeralle was tried yesterday, convicted, shot, and hung from a tree. On the 14th August, the Governor writes to Lord Grey, nine days after the execution, that it was a mistake in supposing that that man was the Pretender; for he says— On the 4th instant, a man who assumed the title of King, and who turns out to be the elder brother of the pretended King, who was crowned at Dambool, and who is still at large, was captured, and on the following day tried by court-martial, and shot. At page 206 of the blue book, it will be seen that on the 16th August, only two days afterwards, the Governor writes to Lord Grey that it had then been found that it was a mistake in supposing not only that the unfortunate man was the Pretender, but again, that it was a mistake in supposing that he was even the Pretender's brother, for he says— Nevertheless, the pretended King is not yet apprehended, and his brother who was at first believed to have been executed at Kornegalle, is also still at large, and the prisoner who was shot on that occasion was only one of the principal adherents of the impostor. Lord Torrington writes to Lord Grey that the pretended King was captured on the 21st September, but that he was neither hanged nor shot, but transported. So that when he finds that the unfortunate man was neither the Pretender nor the Pretender's brother, he jumps to the conclusion that he was at all events an adherent of the Pretender, and does not think it is of any importance that that was not the charge under which he was convicted and executed. We have here an instance, then, of an unfortunate man executed by mistake; but that was not the only mistake, for I find by the blue book that four men were executed on a charge of what they call high treason. One of them is called Nickale Rincheralle; but we have evidence to show that this person is perfectly well at this moment in Ceylon, and it was perfectly obvious that some other individual has been executed; and in our inquiries we have found who it was who was executed instead. As I stated before, it is not my wish to euter at large into the question on this occasion; but I have thought it my duty to point out to the House the nature of the inquiry, as the House will then be able to perceive the impossibility of the hon. Member for Montrose and myself undertaking this case if we are not to have the witnesses who have been asked for. It will be for the House to decide whether this inquiry shall be prosecuted fairly and properly, or whether it shall be at once abandoned. For my own part, it is a matter of indifference. I have performed my duty to the best of my ability, and I shall be satisfied with whatever course the House may think proper to adopt. All I ask is this: if we are to have an inquiry, at least let it be a fair one. Let us not compromise the dignity and character of this House by a sham inquiry, and by taking ex parte evidence. The House will now decide, however, whether it will support the hon. Member for Montrose and myself in our efforts to carry out this investigation fairly, or whether it will support the Ministers of the Crown in their bold and unblushing attempt to baffle and defeat us.

MR. HAWES

Sir, the hon. Gentleman having given me a private notice, for which I thank him, of his intention to make some observations upon matters connected with the Ceylon Committee at the period when I should move the reappointment of this Committee, commenced his speech by a reference to the affairs of Guiana—affairs which of course I did not expect would now come under discussion. The hon. Gentleman has stated, that in that case there was some breach of privilege committed, inasmuch as the Governor of the colony had commented upon a speech of his delivered in this House. That was his statement. [Mr. BAILLIE: It is published in the blue book.] The breach of privilege which the hon. Gentleman means, lies, I apprehend, in the comments on his speech. Now, if any breach of the privileges of this House should be committed, I trust I should be one of the first to regret it; but the fact is, that when the hon. Member moved for the Committee on Guiana, he made unqualified charges against the Governor; and the Governor, seeing those charges in the newspapers, took an opportunity of answering and repelling them—a course which the hon. Member would wish to prevent him from taking. The hon. Gentleman has been pleased to say, that the Committee on British Guiana made certain recommendations with respect to the colony, no one of which has been complied with. [Mr. BAILLIE: I asked whether those recommendations had been carried out.] I understood, from the form of the hon. Gentleman's questions, that he presumed none of the recommendations had been complied with. I cannot, however, allow the hon. Member to escape from the impression his speech was calculated to make, or permit him to imply, that none of those recommendations have been adopted. First of all, the Committee recommended some reform in the constitution of the colony, and an extension of the franchise—a reform to be carried out with caution. That has been done. But the hon. Gentleman says, that the measure was forced through the Court of Policy by the sheer power of the Government, and that in consequence certain of the elected members of the Court retired. It is quite true, that when the Governor moved the Franchise Bill, certain of the members of the Court of Policy retired, but the Bill was ultimately carried with singular unanimity. With regard to improper appointments, the Secretary of State transmitted the report of the Committee to the Governor, and it was for him to institute an inquiry. But many of the appointments impugned in the Committee's report were confirmed by the Governor, and he has given good reasons, in my opinion, for their confirmation. With respect to the salary of the Governor, the Committee did not recommend that it should be reduced. I will refer to the words of the Committee. They say— Your Committee is of opinion that it is a fit subject for inquiry, not merely whether the special grounds on which the increase in question was recommended still exist, but whether, all circumstances considered, a salary of less than 5,000l. per annum would not be insufficient to induce persons, duly qualified for such appointments, to undertake the duties of the office, and enable them to meet all the legitimate expenses to which a Governor is liable. That is not a recommendation that the salary should be reduced. But what course did the Governor take upon it? He stated to the Court of Policy that, with regard to his own personal interests, they should not stand in the way of any course which the Court of Policy might think proper to adopt. Well, the Court of Policy did not think it right to propose any reduction in the salary of the Governor. New elections had taken place in Guiana under a more extended constituency; and they have not even raised the question of the Governor's salary again for consideration, nor has one syllable passed on the subject. I think, therefore, under these circumstances, that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say either that the Committee recommended any specific reduction, or that nothing has been done in the colony in consequence of the re-port. But what is it that has been done in the colony? What I always said would be done. The Committee, having examined the state of the expenditure, five-sixths of which is always under their control, have reduced it between 70,000l. and 80,000l. a year. The whole sum over which the colony has no control was not only guaranteed by local Acts, but sanctioned by the Crown; and when the inquiry into the whole expenditure recommended by the Secretary of State began, then, indeed, the true source of expenditure was discovered, and between 70,000l. and 80,000l. in the course of that inquiry was reduced. My opinion is, that these reductions are, in many cases, too great; and the new Court of Policy, elected by a larger constituency have rather increased, to some extent, than reduced the salaries; so that the saving is not altogether quite equal to what it was in the first instance. The recommendation of the Committee as regards the extension of the franchise, has been adopted—the Bill passed almost unanimously through the legislative body of the colony. But now, Sir, I shall proceed to the affairs of Ceylon. And here I must protest against the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman, marked, as I am bound to say it is, by his usual injustice and want of candour. In the midst of an inquiry, with a Committee about to be reappointed, he brings forward wholesale charges against the local government, and he talks at the same time about the abandonment of the inquiry. Sir, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman wishes to abandon it; for a more hollow inquiry was never brought forward, nor one founded on a meaner conspiracy on the part of parties in Ceylon. But, so far as the Government is concerned, I say that the inquiry shall go on; but it shall be a fair inquiry; and what will be the surprise of the House to hear, after the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that there has been no refusal of witnesses. And now I will state to the House exactly what did occur. Sir, on Saturday, the 28th of July, 1849, a Motion was made in this House that the inquiry before the Select Committee should not continue, but that a Commission should be appointed to inquire on the spot, a resolution to that effect having been carried in the Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman, and by his casting vote alone. The House divided upon it, and deliberately rejected the recommendation of the Committee, and this is the insult to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. Now, Sir, was the rejection carried by Government votes on that occasion? Was there a majority of Members of the Government negativing that Motion? So far from it I find on looking over the division list that there were of Members unconnected with the Government voting for the Motion 33, and against it 64, so that the independent Members of the House actually voted almost two to one against the resolution of the hon. Gentleman. But what passed in the House on that occasion was most important. It was stated—and I now speak in the presence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, who took part in the debate, and also of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, both of whom will be able to confirm what I now say—it was proposed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, that the Committee should meet on the following Monday and name the witnesses it wished to have called for examination. My noble Friend, subsequently in the course of the debate said, taking precisely the same view as the right hon. Member for Ripon, that the Committee should meet and name the witnesses, and that those witnesses, so named, the Secretary of State ought to take the proper means to produce. Well, the Committee did meet, it did nominate the witnesses, and these witnesses are at this moment in this country, ready for their examination. But, Sir, all this has been suppressed by the hon. Gentleman. There was a Motion made subsequently in the Committee, and I am sorry it was allowed to pass unanimously; I did not anticipate such a use would be made of it; but a Motion was certainly carried afterwards, which I will read to the House, and then I will also read from the report of the Committee. The resolution was, that the Chairman should be authorised and was requested to communicate with the Secretary of State as to the necessary witnesses to be ordered home to give evidence before the Committee, to be appointed in the ensuing Session. That was the resolution of the Committee; and now, what says the report?— That means should be adopted in the interval by the Secretary of State, to ensure the attendance before the Committee of the Queen's Advocate of Ceylon, Captain Watson, and such other witnesses whose evidence was necessary to explain and establish the circumstances under which martial law was recently proclaimed in Ceylon. Was there anything in that report or in the resolution I have read, that gave the Chairman of the Committee absolute power, independently of the Secretary of State, and independently of the Committee itself, of nominating any witnesses that he pleased to call? That is the first question I raise—Was there anything to give him that power? I think there was not. Well, Sir, what took place? And now I come to the point that there has been no refusal of witnesses. I showed you that witnesses were ordered by the Committee, that the witnesses so ordered are here, and ready to be examined. But on the 28th of November, three months after the Committee broke up, without any communication with the Secretary of State, or calling on him to exercise any discretion whatever, the hon. Gentleman calls on the Secretary of State, on his individual nomination, to order certain other witnesses home. I say he had no power to do that, nor did the Committee, by any resolution or report, delegate to him any such power. Now what course did the Secretary of State take? Did he refuse these witnesses? The view Lord Grey took was this. He said— The witnesses ordered by the Committee shall be in attendance; the other witnesses, inasmuch as I do not admit that you have the sole power of nominating them, I must leave for the Committee to decide upon when they meet. In the meantime there are witnesses who have been ordered home by the Committee, and the examination can be proceeded with. There are other important witnesses in this country who will fully occupy the interval. And, Sir, it was a serious question—these witnesses would cost from 400l. to 700l. each to the country; and the Secretary of State had to say whether he was justified in incurring such an expense at the individual request of the Chairman, without the authority of the Committee. I think it was a fair question for the Secretary of State to consider whether he ought not to hesitate before he called these witnesses at the simple request of the hon. Gentleman. But now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman talks about abandoning this inquiry because these witnesses are not here. Let me suppose for a moment that Lord Grey had actually acceded to his request—does not the hon. Gentleman lead the House to believe that in that supposition the witnesses would have been here by this time, and that the inquiry cannot be proceeded with because they are not present? Is that not the impression created in the House by his statement? Why, Sir, the letter of the hon. Gentleman, written at the end of November, could not have gone out to the colony till the succeeding December mail, and could not have arrived in Ceylon till the end of January; and the witnesses could not have arrived in England until six weeks afterwards, or till after the middle of March. In the meantime the hon. Gentleman has the two witnesses that the Committee nominated, and there are other witnesses competent to be examined also on the spot. If, therefore, when the Committee meets, it should decide, after hearing what may be said with regard to other special witnesses, to call this further evidence, that further evidence will be called; and, therefore, really and truly, the hon. Gentleman has utterly mistaken the course taken by Lord Grey. Witnesses are not refused—witnesses are here, brought to this country as the Committee had required. Other witnesses are here—there is an abundance of them here ready to go on with. The Committee have already an abundance of materials to occupy them for some time to come, and until any further witnesses they required could be duly summoned home. Now, Sir, I think it right, as I began, to say I protest against the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman. In the midst of this inquiry, with witnesses in England ready to be examined, he chooses to bring these fresh charges in this House, in order, if he can, to prejudice the course of the inquiry; and he singles out one individual, Captain Watson, who uttered what he was pleased to describe as a savage proclamation, that gallant officer being one of the witnesses who is here at this moment waiting to be examined; and he thinks it consistent with the ends of justice, whilst he is here actually in obedience to the summons of the Committee, to make this gratuitous attack on that gallant officer. Why, Sir, is that a course to be justified? If the hon. Gentleman is not afraid to go on with this inquiry, why does he seek to prejudice this gentleman in the eyes of the public? I can again assure the House that this investigation, as far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, shall go on and be prosecuted to its legitimate conclusion. There is abundant evidence ready now to continue the inquiry, and there is no ground whatever for abandoning it at this moment; on the contrary, there is every ground for continuing it. But the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that Lord Grey has written for, and brought over, some witnesses of his own, and that Lord Torrington, I suppose, has sent over witnesses. Lord Grey has written for none but those sought for by the Committee, and Lord Torrington has sent over none. Sir Emerson Tennent, the secretary of the colony, is now in this country. He is now on leave of absence, and being an important officer of the local Government, he is ready to give evidence; but Lord Grey never thought it right or proper to promise or guarantee witnesses their expenses, or summon any here. Therefore, none have been summoned by Lord Grey, or sent by Lord Torrington, but those the Committee has ordered. Then I 'ask, under the circumstances, what right has the hon. Gentleman to say it? and still more I ask, what justification has he for making the attack he has done on one of the witnesses about to be examined? What right has he to single out this witness—his own witness, a gallant officer, called by himself? Why, Captain Watson is a gentleman actually named in the report of the Committee. [Mr. BAILLIE said, Captain Watson was not one of his witnesses.] The hon. Gentleman says he does not know this, and that he did not propose him. Then I suppose it was the hon. Member for Montrose who nominated Captain Watson as a witness. But the truth is, the hon. Gentleman does not know much about the matter. Being much engaged, he has left himself entirely in the hands of others; and, but for that circumstance, he would not have made the statement he has done to the House. No doubt he is actuated by a sense of duty—I give him credit to that extent; but he has been most grossly misled. But again, I say, it is unusual for a Member of Parliament and an English gentleman to endeavour to prejudice a witness who is about to be examined, and who was summoned by a body among whom the hon. Gentleman at least was most prominent. Therefore, let the House understand this—that the witnesses summoned by the Committee are here—that four or five other very important witnesses connected with the colony are also here on the spot, who know all the circumstances, and who are perfectly ready to go into the minutest details of the inquiry—that they are here, and waiting to be examined. I presume the House will not refuse to go on with this inquiry—I presume the House, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman, casting such imputations as he does on the government of that colony, will hardly refuse the Governor of the colony the opportunity of defending himself—either by authentic documents or by witnesses speaking from their own personal knowledge—from the gross charges brought against him. Sir, if the Committee when it meets shall assign good grounds for calling fresh witnesses, I know of no objection there can be to such a course; but, looking at the names which the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called, I think there may be some doubt whether all these parties ought to be summoned. However, I shall reserve my remarks on this point for the Committee, and shall not be guilty of making a personal attack on individuals in this open House without due consideration. With regard to one out of the hon. Gentleman's four names, there are reasons which I believe the Committee will see the force of, and hesitate before it calls that party. Under the whole of the circumstances I have mentioned, I sit down by assuring the House that it shall not be the fault of any one connected with the Government if this inquiry is not prosecuted to its utmost legitimate extent.

MR. HUME

would assure the bon. Member who had just sat down, that as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House, he would do his utmost to cause these atrocious proceedings in Ceylon to be sifted to the bottom. He need not be under any alarm that the inquiry would be abandoned; and he could promise the hon. Gentleman he should have full satisfaction before the Committee had done with the subject. The hon. Under Secretary of State had thought fit to interpret the speech of his (Mr. Hume's) hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire to mean that he wished to give up the case—he had no such intention. He would show the fairness of that which his hon. Friend meant to do. His hon. Friend had likened the proceedings in Ceylon to the proceedings in Hungary. The proceedings in Hungary were mild in comparison. He would prove it. If he ever uttered a speech in that House, he was ready to prove it, and he had done so. He might have made some he could not prove. He was not infallible. He did not wish to mix up the case of Ceylon with that of Guiana; but he would just observe that at the proper opportunity he would be able to prove that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonics was entirely in error in what he said respecting Guiana. But with regard to Ceylon, that hon. Gentleman took upon him, with an unblushing effrontery such as be (Mr. Hume) never before witnessed, to say that this inquiry arose from "a mean conspiracy on the part of certain individuals in Ceylon." Did he intend to say that "a mean conspiracy" bad brought 5,000 petitioners in one case, and 39,000 in another, to ask for redress from that House? The truth of the allegation of those petitions he believed; and he asked hon. Gentlemen who might not be altogether so well-informed on the subject, to wait and see the proof, and then if there was one man in that House who would deliberately rise and say that that was not a fit and proper subject of inquiry, he should be utterly confounded. He should not therefore enter into details, but he should state the course which Go- vernment had taken, and which had placed them in the situation they were now in. He must confess, in the Committee upstairs, after the House had rejected the recommendation of the Committee to appoint a Commission to proceed to the spot, he objected to proceeding with the inquiry here; and why? The petitions that he presented from the inhabitants of Ceylon contained allegations of grievances so great and so multiform, that he conceived the truth could not be ascertained by the Committee here, and could be ascertained only by a Commission on the spot. Here were grave and serious charges, forcing the production of private letters, but still detailing acts of atrocity which the Committee were alarmed at, and considered of the most aggravated nature. They were unable to follow out the evidence to the conclusion by the separation of the House, and they proposed this Commission not to allow it to hang over till another Session, but in order to have the matter properly inquired into and to have justice done. He had no feeling whatever with respect to any man in Ceylon, but he had a great desire to see justice done to the oppressed. He saw thousands, and tens of thousands, under the rod of the oppressor, and with no means by which justice could be obtained. He therefore recommended a Commission, and the Committee agreed to it. It would be recollected what passed when they came to the House. The hon. Gentleman had made allusion to the debate of the 28th of July. He would bear in mind his objection and his opposition. He stated then it was the wish of the inhabitants to have justice done, and that he distrusted the Government. The distrust he then felt had been realised. He had not the least confidence in the Secretary of State, who, he believed, did everything he could to cloak and cover the atrocities that had been committed there. But when he saw a Government agree to a Committee, and that Committee proceed to inquire into the transaction, the whole of the Government officers being allowed to remain on the spot and at a distance, he saw immediately that the accused would be in a position to use all the power that they had to refuse justice. It was on that ground that when he went back to the Committee he told the Committee he had no confidence in the Secretary of State, and that he did not wish* to go on with it. He consequently stood perfectly free of any charge of having called witnesses. His hon. Friend, in the most unwarrantable manner, said Captain Watson and Mr. Selby were their witnesses. He (Mr. Hume) objected to any witness being brought at all. How could the hon. Gentleman father upon him the nomination of any witnesses, when he objected, and persevered to the last moment in objecting to them? He admitted that a difference of opinion existed in the Committee; but the majority of the Committee rested on the assurance of the noble Lord, that every facility would be given to bring home all such witnesses as could elicit the truth to be examined by the Committee. He would state what took place in the Committee. He could have named, and did name, a dozen witnesses. He had been entrusted solely with the petition, and not knowing the witnesses that would prove the allegations in the petition, how could he take upon himself to recommend so many witnesses being brought over, without communicating with the petitioners, and asking them who they had to make good their evidence? The matter was discussed, and the Members of the Committee would bear in mind this fact, that Captain Watson and Mr. J. Selby were named, not by his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire, or by him; but because Captain Watson, in a letter before the Committee, was accused of having burned villages and directed the confiscation of property; that he had taken possession of that confiscated property, and in some instances had rendered no account of it; and the Committee said, "We must have this gentleman, at any rate, to explain this conduct." Mr. Selby, again, was supposed to have gone to the chief justice to try to save the life of a priest who was now proved to have been perfectly innocent. Mr. Selby also went to Lord Torrington, and told him that, from all the information he could obtain, the priest was altogether innocent; that the evidence had been given by a father and son, both of whom were candidates for office under Government, and that their statements were not to be credited. When Mr. Selby went to Lord Torrington, his Lordship was reported to have said, "I do not care if all the proctors are of opinion that this man is innocent, I should not believe it, but he shall be hanged." Mr. Selby was to be brought to prove that Mr. Selby was not implicated, but Captain Watson had committed a great portion of the atrocity. Was he the man to tell them of that? And who else had they? They had Sir Emerson Tennent, he was told. He should prove before the Committee that most extraordinary efforts had been made to collect evidence to enable Sir Emerson Tennent to contradict the evidence which had been given. They had had copies of the evidence, they had gone through the whole of it, and had now deputed, as he understood, under the hand of an individual in whom he (Mr. Hume) placed the highest confidence, they had now deputed Sir Emerson Tennent to come home, to bolster up the government of Lord Torrington. Who was Sir Emerson Tennent? He was the Secretary of the Colonial Government. He was the last man to be examined. He therefore said, they had no evidence whatever in support of these petitions. He therefore considered it was idle to tell the Committee it was a furtherance of justice to go on, and that there was a chance of fair play when they had refused to send for these four individuals that were named, for it was said that the evidence of these four men would be sufficient to establish all the facts. He was utterly at a loss to understand how his hon. Friend could justify what he had now stated, that the Committee had not the power to delegate to the chairman the selection of witnesses. He appealed to those who were present that this was what took place. The Committee were not able to state exactly the number of witnesses they wanted; there were a number of individuals whom he (Mr. Hume) might desire to bring forward; but he would waive his desire to include certain parties then, if the Committee would give authority to the chairman to summon these witnesses at a future period. And in the resolution which his hon. Friend had read, he would find that Captain Watson, Mr. Selby, and such other witnesses were included, as might be indicated by the chairman of the Committee, and which he did intimate by the end of November, or the beginning of December. He could not reconcile the conduct of Government with that sense of justice which ought to be entertained by a man in the situation of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government—a man who, he had always believed, was desirous to see justice done to every man—a man whose word they ought to have taken, and on whose assurance he, for one, could in some degree depend. But he had no dependence whatever on the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. ["Oh, oh!"] He had not; he never had. He liked to be candid. Since the acts of that noble Lord in regard to the colony of British Guiana and other places—acts which had come to his knowledge—had been committed, he would not believe his word or his writing. And now he came to an independent witness. He appealed to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, because he believed that but for his interference the House might have hesitated to reject the recommendation of the Committee. He would ask him whether his understanding of the assurance of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the second speech he made on that occasion, was not entirely owing to the assurance given by the noble Lord that every facility should be given to the calling of witnesses? The Committee met, but as Parliament was about to be prorogued the next day, they could not determine on the witnesses, and the next best thing they could do was to delegate to the chairman the power of summoning witnesses. He asked the right hon. Baronet if that was not carrying out legitimately the assurance of the noble Lord? If when they met they had no witnesses to examine but the parties to the crime, that would be foreign to his ideas of justice, and what the hon. Gentleman said was perfectly correct; they must postpone it till they got other witnesses. And let him say that these witnesses the hon. Member referred to were public servants. He did not know them, but it was stated that they were honourable men. He said it was an attempt to stop the course of public justice; it was an attempt to prevent an inquiry into an affair in which the lives of Her Majesty's subjects had been sacrificed. Twenty-two men had been shot, twenty-eight banished, and sixty-six imprisoned, all owing to the recklessness of the Governor of Ceylon. It was fit and proper that they should inquire. They could not recall the dead, but they might do some justice to those who were now pining in exile. They might do some good by teaching other governors that such proceedings would not be lightly passed over. It was on that ground that he had taken the trouble that he had done, and it had cost a great deal of time and trouble to go through so important a question. It was on that ground that he had interfered, and he had no hesitation in saying that a more paltry attempt to lay aside what was the understanding in that House, that the recommendation of witnesses should be con- fined to the number named by the Committee, he never knew. What more could the Committee have done till the chairman had obtained the best information he could of the witnesses that had been summoned. The chairman communicated with Ceylon, and he communicated the names to Government, and he must, in justice to his hon. Friend, say that no man could be more astonished at the result. Here was a question of immense and vital importance to the welfare of our colonies, and the character of the country, and they heard a Minister, a Member of a Government that squandered millions upon millions, which voted 15,000l. or 20,000l. to Labuan, tell them that he could not take upon himself to run the risk of 2,800l., supposing the utmost was expended—700l. for each witness. It was the case of the colonists. They were suffering great privations, and were under great difficulties. Orders had been given to the justices of the peace in different parts of Ceylon to take no affidavits against the Government, but to take affidavits in favour of it. Every obstacle had been thrown in the way of inquiry, and he would prove that one of the witnesses named, an honourable and distinguished gentleman in the colony, was threatened that if he ventured to go to England, or to give any information on the subject, charges would be brought against him. They had been told to bring their charges; well, they did bring them, and then their witnesses had been intimidated, and one or two of them had been hushed into silence by the receipt of Government situations in reward for their perfidy. Looking to the facts that had occurred, and the mode in which the proceedings had been carried on by the Government, he thought his hon. Friend was quite right in the course which he had adopted; but he thought the subject was of too vital an interest to the character of the House and to the colonies, and that it ought not to pass over in a mere debate. He was not prepared to interfere in the course which his hon. Friend had taken, and would agree to the reappointment of the Committee. He had been at considerable pains to collect the information which he bad in his possession, and he deeply regretted the course which Her Majesty's Government had adopted, in preventing those witnesses from coming forward, and an inquiry being made into the administration and conduct of a colonial governor. Whatever course Her Majesty's Government took, he (Mr. Hume) felt satisfied that something must very speedily be done.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, the question we have to consider to-day is, I think, of a very simple character, and should be confined entirely to a consideration by the House of the understanding that was arrived at between the Committee and the Government. I will make no reference to proceedings at Ceylon, of which we may, or of which we may not, have testimony; but I will endeavour to place before the House the question upon which I think we are called upon to give a decision and express an opinion. The House will recollect that on nearly the last day of last Session, when the Committee reported the expression of their opinion that a commission should be sent to Ceylon to report on certain circumstances, I mentioned that I had proposed a compromise in the Committee to the Under Secretary of State; and I recollect afterwards that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, approving of that compromise, regretted very much that the Under Secretary of State had not accepted of it. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman did not, on the whole, think it best that the resolution of the Committee should be sanctioned by the House; but he expressed a very qualified disapprobation of the course we had recommended. What happened in the Committee appears to me to be quite decisive as to the intentions both of the Government and of the Committee; and no doubt for a moment of the meaning of the Committee and Government could be entertained, if the Under Secretary, in placing the circumstances before the House, had not so transposed the documents on which the merits of the question depend, that he conveyed to the House an impression exactly the contrary to what occurred. The hon. Gentleman said he had read the documents, but he happened to read first the document that occurred last. This is not a matter of argument but of demonstration: there can be no difference of opinion respecting it between me and the Under Secretary, nor in the House. The hon. Gentleman read this resolution as one that had been carried in the Committee; namely, "Motion made and question put, that the Chairman be authorised and desired to enter into a communication with the Secretary of State, as to the necessary witnesses to be examined in the ensu- ing Session." The Motion was made apparently by the hon. Member for Montrose; and after that the Under Secretary of State referred to that resolution as the basis of the report which he read afterwards. The report was drawn up to this effect—I am answerable for the paragraph, as I moved it—"that the Committee regret the termination of the Session, and that they are unable to conclude their inquiry into the administration and government of Ceylon, the late insurrection there, and the means adopted by the local Government for its repression; but from the gravity of the circumstances elicited in the inquiry, they think it expedient that the Committee should be reappointed next Session to pursue their inquiry, and that measures should be taken to ensure the attendance of the Queen's Advocate at Ceylon, and Captain Watson, and such other evidence as is necessary to explain the circumstances under which martial law was proclaimed in Ceylon." This report was drawn up, proposed, and carried, and the whole was concluded before the resolution which the Under Secretary of State referred to as the basis of the report, was adopted. When we drew up the report, we put in the names of the Queen's Advocate and Captain Watson, and left a space for other names. It was impossible to know, from the hurried manner in which the Committee met, what other names were necessary, and those general words, "such other witnesses," were inserted. It is an important fact, that, when a Member of the Committee, Lord Hotham, proposed the name of Colonel Frazer should be introduced, we said, as we have agreed not to insert the names of the witnesses, upon an understanding with the Colonial Office, it is inexpedient to put in the name of Colonel Frazer, and therefore we negatived the proposition of Lord Hotham that the name of Colonel Frazer should be inserted. Then it was agreed that the Chairman should communicate with Her Majesty's Government as to the necessary witnesses to be ordered home to give evidence before the Committee in the ensuing Session. In my opinion the case is a complete one. I do not think it would be creditable to the House if, under these circumstances, it deserted its Committee. I feel confident that if the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, who acted on the last occasion as amicus curiœ in this case, comes forward and gives us his frank opinion, he must be under the impression that the conduct of the Government has been of a tendency that would at least evade a further inquiry. I am not one of those who would avoid an inquiry, and I think the tone of the Under Secretary unauthorised. A grave charge was made against the Government last year, and what was their defence? Not a modest defence, certainly; but they assumed that tone of indignation which the hon. Gentleman has on more that one occasion exhibited. They had heard it that day, and they had been greeted with it on the first night the Ceylon business was introduced. But whatever was the opinion of the Committee, or the final decision of the House, we must admit that the investigation into those affairs was a necessary and most important one; and when the hon. Gentleman attacks the hon. Member for the county of Inverness, and calls him to account for personal criticism, on the part of a gentleman who is to be called before the Committee as a witness, let me remind the Under Secretary that he has this day declared, in an unequivocal manner, that the whole is a conspiracy in the island of Ceylon, and that persons whose evidence is required are part of the conspirators. [Mr. HAWES: NO. I did not say so.] I did not say he used those exact words; but when he said those statements were the consequence of a conspiracy, it would lead to an inference that the witnesses we wished to call to substantiate the statements are, in fact, part of that conspiracy. I am for an investigation into the case. I am for assenting to the Motion of the Under Secretary, to which I would add those words, to the effect that in assenting to the reappointment of the Committee, this House deems it proper to express its disapprobation of the manner in which Her Majesty's Government have evaded the understanding of last Session for the production of witnesses.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'in assenting to the re-appointment of a Committee to inquire into the grievances complained of in Ceylon, in connexion with the administration and government of that Colony, and to report their opinion whether any measures can be adopted for the redress of any grievances of which there may be shown just reason to complain, and also whether any measures can be adopted for the better administration and government of that Dependency, this House deems it expedient to express its disapprobation of the manner in which Her Majesty's Government have evaded the understanding of last Session for the further production of witnesses in this investigation.'

LORD J. RUSSELL

Sir, as I was the principal person by whom the understanding was entered into, the House will feel it is necessary for me to address them on the subject of the censure on my conduct which the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Inverness-shire) has uttered. Now, Sir, in doing so I must beg to recall to the recollection of the House what happened at the end of the last Session of Parliament. The Committee came to a resolution after some Members of the Committee had left London, that it was expedient to appoint a commission to go to Ceylon, in order to examine witnesses. When that Motion was brought before the House, I opposed it, as one that would destroy all authority in the Island of Ceylon; and I said I thought that cither Lord Torrington should be immediately recalled, or the House should refuse to appoint the commission that was proposed. The House, as I believed, agreed with me in opinion that that commission ought not to be appointed; but in the course of that discussion it appeared that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had moved in the Committee for a different and perhaps preferable course, that certain witnesses should be summoned before the Committee. Now, Sir, in speaking upon this subject, I said—I believe it was in consequence of something that fell from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon—that I thought if the witnesses were named by the Committee, that those witnesses would be sent for, and be in attendance in the next Session of Parliament. The words I used on that subject, as I find them recorded, were— That if the Committee were to meet again and propose to summon certain witnesses from Ceylon, there could be no difficulty in summoning those witnesses; and unless there was some physical impossibility, which was not likely, having them in attendance when the Committee met next year."—Hansard, cvii. 1099. Now, Sir, I had some apprehension, not unnaturally seeing what frequently occurs, that the plain sense of the words I used might be distorted, and that the hon. Gentleman, expressing his readiness to with- draw his Motion, might pervert the plain sense of my words, and instead of saying the witnesses named 'by the Committee should be summoned, might put some other interpretation on the proposal I made. I therefore determined, contrary to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, that I would not allow the Motion to be withdrawn, and I called upon the House to put a negative on the Motion, and the House accordingly put a negative on the Motion; therefore the hon. Gentleman cannot say that he withdrew his Motion, or was ready to forego any advantage he might have from the opinion of the House in consequence of that statement of mine. When the Committee met next day, it appeared they came to a resolution which the hon. Gentleman has read—they came to a resolution that the Queen's Advocate in Ceylon, and Captain Watson, and such other witnesses whose attendance might be necessary, should be summoned, and that a communication should be had with the Secretary of State for that purpose. Now, Sir, in coming to that resolution they went certainly beyond anything I have stated in this House—they went, I conceive, beyond the regular powers of a Parliamentary Committee. They stated that certain witnesses should be summoned from Ceylon. So far everything was regular, and in conformity with what I stated; but in proposing, further, that such other witnesses as might be necessary should be summoned from Ceylon, they either meant one of two things—they either meant that the chairman of the Committee should communicate with the Secretary of State, and state to him the reasons why certain other persons should be summoned, placing before him the ground on which they thought their evidence was necessary, and obtain his concurrence that they should be summoned; or else it meant that the chairman of the Committee should have an absolute right to command the Secretary of State, and give orders to him with respect to any witness to be summoned. With regard to that last interpretation, it cannot be held by the House to be sufficient or binding. When I said the witnesses required by the Committee should be summoned, I did not mean that the chairman of the Committee should have absolute power, or that for six months he should have the absolute discretion to summon any witness he might name, and that the Queen's Secretary of State had nothing to do but to obey the orders of the chairman. If that is not the interpretation, I ask of what it is that the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion has to complain? At the end of November the hon. Gentleman wrote a letter, of which I have a copy in my hand, in which he requires that the Secretary of State should summon four witnesses from Ceylon, but gave no reason for summoning them. He said their presence was necessary, but he gave no reason whatever why they should be summoned. He did not state what it was they were called upon to say, and the Secretary of State naturally answered that he did not conceive he had properly the power to summon the witnesses thus named—that it could not but lead to a considerable expense; and Earl Grey said, as he was not aware that the Parliamentary Committee possessed the power of delegating to their chairman the power of summoning what witnesses were to be called, his Lordship did not feel at liberty to incur the heavy expense that would be necessary to make this addition to the witnesses. This discussion must be left to the Secretary of State, and it is impossible that the House could have meant otherwise, for see what is the object of the decision which Earl Grey came to. I asked Earl Grey himself if sufficient reasons were given to him by the chairman of the Committee, and, if it were shown to him that the attendance of those witnesses was necessary, whether he would not have felt at liberty to summon the witnesses. He said, if such grounds were laid before him as he thought were sufficient, he would have proceeded in that course, and felt at liberty to summon the witnesses; but that he was to be at the command of the chairman of the Committee, and obey the dictates that chairman should give him, was not his duty as Secretary of State. And unless you subvert the authority of the Secretary of State, and say he has no discretion, but must obey the orders, not of a Committee, but of the chairman of a Committee, I submit to the House that the resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire cannot be in any manner sustained. The letter was written at the end of November; Parliament has met at the end of January; it is now proposed that the Committee should be reappointed; and if the hon. Gentleman thinks fit, on consideration, to summon those witnesses, there will be two months, and no more, lost by this decision of Earl Grey. How, then, is it possible to say that my noble Friend has evaded the understanding, or wishes to baffle inquiry? for such is the case as it now stands before the House. If the House agree to the Committee, this question will be brought before it before a single witness is examined. Having referred to what passed with regard to myself, I cannot but say that I deeply regret that the hon. Gentleman the chairman of the Committee should have taken this occasion to raise what may be considered a very painful and exciting discussion relating to the affairs of Ceylon. The hon. Gentleman is not aware—and my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose is not aware—of the consequences of this inquiry. It was necessary for the Governor of Ceylon to put down a formidable insurrection, which might have led to much bloodshed; of that there can be no doubt. Whether, in so putting it down, and punishing the persons engaged in it, he was guilty of greater rigour than was necessary, is a question for the Committee. It is a grave question, affecting not only the character of the Governor, but the authority of this country in all parts of the world, and more especially affecting the tranquillity of that colony. When the hon. Member for Montrose spoke of the conduct of Earl Grey, was he aware that persons in Ceylon have not scrupled to say they have the authority of the Committee to call whom they may—to send home any witness they please, even the chief judges of Ceylon; and by the authority of the Committee they can dispose as they please of persons in that colony. They have gone further, and spread through an ignorant population, consisting of a million and a half of natives, with a very small European population, a report that they have it in their power to punish the Governor, and to recall all the persons that were banished; and have said that the legal authority of the Government was not to be attended to, because they would, by their communications with the hon. Member for Montrose and the Committee, destroy the Government, and send home Lord Torrington to be punished. Now, these are no light matters amidst a population of a million and a half of natives. I think it was a reason when the Committee was appointed that we should avoid exciting topics, and by Gentlemen belonging to that Committee have the question calmly decided. Instead of that, the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, though concurring in the opinion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that Captain Watson should be examined as one of the witnesses, has thought proper to pronounce the strongest possible invective against the conduct of Captain Watson. Now, I ask, is that the way to proceed? I do hope that that hon. Gentleman, not merely standing now in the situation of an accuser, but also as Chairman of the Committee, will consider that he has great duties to perform, and a serious responsibility. Whatever our responsibility may be with respect to the government of that colony, those who permit inflammatory addresses to be circulated in that colony have also a serious responsibility upon them; and I do hope that, in appointing this Committee (whether the House censure me or not), you will consider that the peace and happiness of an important possession of the British Crown are involved in your decision.

SIR J. GRAHAM

Mr. Speaker, as allusion has been made to me by more than one hon. Member during the progress of this discussion, I cannot remain silent; at the same time I am very unwilling to be dragged into this debate, into which more heat has entered than I think desirable, considering the official character of the inquiry in progress before a Committee of this House. Of that feeling I don't partake in the least degree. I know nothing of this matter, except what occurred in the debate at the close of the last Session—what I collected from the report already on the table of the House—and what I incidentally collected from other organs of public information. The matter which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire more immediately presses on our consideration now, is a question as to the understanding which was arrived at in this House after the debate at the close of last Session. It has been my misfortune very often to be brought into hostile collision with the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but I must say, having known the noble Lord now for many years, that I know no man who is less capable, either in public or in private, of intentionally breaking any engagement into which he has entered; or any Member of the House who, from his constitutional principles, steadily adhered to through a long political life, would be so little disposed to impede, unfairly or consciously, any inquiry instituted in the Commons' House of Parliament, in their capacity of the grand inquest of the nation. I cannot, without conclusive evidence, believe that the noble Lord has violated intentionally any pledge given in this House on this subject. That would be my general impression; but my special recollection of what occurred at the close of last Session confirms my general impression. I think the understanding into which the noble Lord entered was limited to this—that the Ceylon Committee might, on the earliest day after the debate was closed, consider the documentary evidence that was necessary—that they should consider the names of the witnesses who were to be summoned—that they were to agree upon those names—and notify those names to the Secretary of State; and the noble Lord undertook that when those names were so notified to the Secretary of State, means should be taken to ensure their attendance. That was the understanding; and looking to what occurred before the Committee, I must say that understanding was complied with. It appears, however, that a difficulty arose in fixing upon the names of the persons to be summoned; and power was given by a vote of the Committee to delegate to the Chairman to communicate to the Secretary of State the names of those persons. I must say, really, my impression is that that vote so carried went beyond the undertaking of the noble Lord; and my difficulty in this ease arises from the Secretary of State having concurred in that resolution. By doing so he went beyond the promise of the noble Lord; but I think the noble Lord has given that interpretation to the engagement which it strictly bears. The great question for us now to consider, is, not to come to a vote of censure without any notice given, but to see what the ends of justice require. It is impossible this inquiry can be stifled, or put clown in any degree. I do not understand that Government intend to stifle it. I think the inquiry must be prosecuted to the utmost. The more I hear of it, the more I feel that the public interest requires the deepest investigation, and that it should take place with the least possible delay. As to the question of expense, the expense of summoning witnesses is not to be regarded for a moment. Then arises the question of loss of time; but two months only have been lost. The communication was made to the Secretary of State at the end of November, and it was not possible to send for the witnesses until the early part of December; and now, if the Committee are appointed to-day, and meet on to-morrow or Friday, they may agree on the names of further witnesses to be called, so that only two months, in point of fact, have been lost in summoning those witnesses. All the desire that I have on the subject is, that the investigation should be prosecuted, and that it should be conducted fairly, fully, and without reservation, and that no witness whose evidence the Committee think important should be kept back. Before the close of this Session, with ordinary diligence, those witnesses may be sent for, their evidence could be taken, and the inquiry would close. I sincerely regret that any misunderstanding should take place to disturb the judicial character of the inquiry. I shall vote for the reappointment of the Committee, and I am anxious the inquiry should go on; but, on the whole, I cannot vote for any vote of censure such as that contained in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire.

MR. F. MAULE

begged to make a remark in reference to an observation made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Inverness. The hon. Gentleman had led the House to suppose that during the insurrection in Ceylon the task of performing a highly responsible duty had been placed in the hands of an officer (Colonel Drought) of no very long standing in the service. It was also complained that Major General Smelt did not repair to the post at which Colonel Drought was stationed; but the fact was that Major General Smelt's attention was devoted to the protection of the capital, and Colonel Drought, the senior officer in command in the disturbed district, was entrusted with the discharge of important duties there. Of what standing in the army did the House think; Colonel Drought was? He was of thirty-five years standing. He was an officer distinguished by his zeal in his profession, by his intelligence in the performance of the duties entrusted to him, and had served I thirty-three years on full pay.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he rose to offer one or two observations, which he should not have made but for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, who had not shown great tact as a leader in the resolution he had submitted. There was a pretty general opinion on both sides of the House that the course taken by Earl Grey, if not intended to evade inquiry, at least laid him open to strong suspicion of it; and he was sure no one on the bench on which he sat would be disposed to sanc- tion such conduct. But the hon. Member's proposition had been made without any notice—without any one supposing that so grave a question as a vote of censure on the Government was to be brought forward. The Motion was one of direct disapproval of the conduct of the Government, though it was quite possible that the course taken had been taken by misapprehension on the part of one Member of the Government and who was not then present to state precisely the motives from which he had acted. With regard to the question itself, he thought Earl Grey entirely wrong in the course he had taken; and there was a fallacy in the explanation that had been given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. He did not think the Committee were to be bound, in the course they took, by any expression which had fallen at the close of last Session from the noble Lord at the head of the Government; they ought to have been, and he presumed were, left at liberty to take the course usually taken by Committees, which was, to leave a considerable power in the hands of their chairman with regard to the summoning of witnesses; and this course was of great advantage to the business of the Committees. In this case the course taken had been precisely the right one, and the only one which it was in the Committee's power to take; for they had not then the names before them, and could not possibly obtain them without communicating with Ceylon. They requested their chairman to make such communication; and when he received his answer, it was his duty to proceed to the Colonial Office, and hand in the names of such parties as he believed to be substantial witnesses, for the purposes of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire did so; and the witnesses he proposed to call, were precisely those whom the House would believe ought to be called, in order to give information on the point. They were Lieutenant Colonel Braybrooke, Lieutenant Henderson (of the Ceylon Rifles), E. J. Waring, Esq. (police magistrate), and Mr. John Selby (advocate), brother, he believed, of the Queen's Advocate. Had the hon. Gentleman acting for the Committee called three or four men of no character, or of unknown character—men who might be supposed to be strong partisans against Lord Torrington, and from whom only a very coloured and garbled account of these transactions might be supposed likely to be obtained—then Earl Grey might have hesitated. As it was, he protested against the noble Lord refusing to summon these persons, and refusing almost entirely on the ground of expense. [An Hon. MEMBER: NO, no!] In a letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, he said— Lord Grey is not aware that a Parliamentary Committee possesses the power of delegating to its chairman the power of deciding what witnesses are to be called for; and his Lordship does not feel himself at liberty, without the express authority of the Committee, to incur the heavy expense which would be occasioned by directing the attendance of the additional witnesses whose names you have given. It had been expressly understood that two or more witnesses should be called; and it certainly was not unreasonable that the chairman should select four respectable men, and parties whom the Committee might fairly examine. The number certainly did not exceed what it might be supposed the Committee required to be called, when they left it to their chairman to choose such others as it might be necessary to examine. He agreed in what had been said as to the impropriety of the course taken by Earl Grey; it was a very bad thing for his own case, for Lord Torrington, and for the Government, that he should have hesitated in a matter like this. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said this was a very exciting subject in the colony. No doubt of it. But the proper way to put down excitement in that colony, and to prevent its springing up in others, was for that House to show the most determined resolution to have the fullest and speediest inquiry which the circumstances would permit. The condition of our colonies was not so favourable that we could afford to allow charges of this nature to remain uninvestigated—charges which, if only half substantiated, would bring the utmost disgrace on Lord Torrington, and would heap discredit on the Government that had backed him for the last twelve or eighteen months. Were only half these charges proved, it would justify all, and more than all, that had been said by hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the Colonial Office on this question. If the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would substitute for his Motion, "That the witnesses whose names were handed in to the Colonial Office be forthwith summoned to attend this Committee," he (Mr. Bright) should be extremely happy to vote with him; and that would suffi- ciently show the opinion of the House with regard to their not having been called by Earl Grey; but he would not, under the circumstances, consent to vote for the Motion the hon. Gentleman had made; and he did not like to go into the same lobby with the Government on this Motion, without this brief explanation of his reasons for doing so.

MAJOR BLACKALL

said, that as far as his recollection served him, the reasons which influenced the Committee in deciding upon summoning Mr. Selby and Captain Watson, were, that those persons would be able to prove or disprove certain charges made before the Committee; one of which was founded upon certain letters containing expressions said to have been used by Lord Torrington; another of the charges being that Lord Torrington had communicated with Captain Watson, instead of, as is the usual course, giving instructions to the commanding officer. It was agreed by the Committee that those witnesses should be called, and the chairman was authorised to communicate with the Colonial Office as to the necessary witnesses to be ordered home to give evidence before the Committee to be appointed in the ensuing Session. The hon. Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, though he assented to that resolution, stated that evidence would be required to be given to show that the attendance of such witnesses was necessary. He regretted that expressions had been made use of in the course of the debate which seemed to assume that all the charges which had been made had been distinctly proved; and it was with extreme pleasure that he heard the testimony borne by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War to the conduct of Colonel Drought. In his (Major Blackall's) opinion, there was no person whose character would be a better guarantee that no act of cruelty or unnecessary violence would take place, or to whom at the same time the safety of the colony and the honour of the troops could be more safely confided than to that gallant officer.

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, if the House will permit me to make a few observations on the Amendment which I have proposed, I shall feel obliged. There seems to be some reason for opposing that Amendment, because it contains a general disapproval of the Government, rather than of one single Member of it. For my part, I cannot recognise the principle, that the act of any individual Member of the Cabinet is not shared by the general Government; and nothing, in my opinion, could be more unfair, in any Motion or proposition of this sort, than to single out for censure any one particular Minister, and not to make your expression of censure a general one. That is the only reason why I adopted the language contained in the Amendment. I acknowledge the justice of the criticism which has been made upon the Amendment, that no notice has been given of a resolution which is equivalent to a vote of censure. I have no idea of taking the House by surprise upon this subject. It is an Amendment which grew up out of the Motion on the subject. The hon. Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has made a Motion of a particular character, which called for some expression of opinion upon the part of hon. Members; and indeed it was expressed by the other side as a matter of astonishment that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire had not moved some Amendment upon that Motion. I myself have no wish—if it is supposed that notice has not been given of what may be called a vote of censure—I have no wish to insist on my Motion, and if the House will permit me I will withdraw it. But in acceding to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester, which appears to me an excellent one, I can only look upon it as one which involves a censure upon the Government also; and if after the production of the letter of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the expressions made use of by a Member of the Government, the House avails itself of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester, which I leave in his hands, and am willing to support him, I must still consider it as virtually a censure upon the Government.

MR. V. SMITH

said, that as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, the great leader of the Protectionist party, had consented to put his Motion in a better position by the suggestion of a Jacobin free trader, a greater victory could not be taken by the hon. Member for Manchester than that of his present position, in which he had taught the leader of the opposite party what tactics he ought to pursue in that House. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire were withdrawn, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester substituted in its stead, he should feel it his duty to oppose it, for this reason—they were not now in the position in which they were when the hon. Member for Inverness-shire made his proposal to the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary. He quite agreed in the opinion that it was unwise in the noble Lord to reject the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee, in a case in which it was of so much importance that a full and complete inquiry should take place. The expenses of bringing over the witnesses were but a mere trifle in comparison with the magnitude of the inquiry. The House had now to consider the question in another point of view. The Committee were now upon the point of being reappointed, and, in his opinion, it would be advisable, and more respectful to the Committee, to allow it to decide for itself how many and what witnesses should be sent for from the colony, now that the noble Lord had refused to send for them, at the suggestion of the Committee.

MR. HENLEY

considered that it was scarcely possible, whatever arrangements might be made, that any full or complete inquiry could be made at all this Session. The delay of two months, or of ten weeks, which had been spoken of, was not the whole of the results of this refusal of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office. They had been told that two witnesses had been sent for, and that, somehow or other, there were four or five others ready to be examined, which would occupy the time of the Committee till the arrival of the others. The effect of this would be, that the selected witnesses called to upset the case—if he might use such a term—would be examined first, and when the Session had nearly terminated, the witnesses would be called who were to establish the case. Such would be the practical effect—he did not say that it was intended it should be so, nor did he charge any one with any intentions of the sort; but no person would ever consent to go into an inquiry in which the adversary's case, which ought to he the reply, should be allowed to come out first, and throw discredit upon everything which they were going to state, before they had had an opportunity of stating their case.

LORD J. RUSSELL

I cannot give my consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire being withdrawn. If it is not a censure upon the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, I consider it a censure upon myself and the Government, and shall therefore oppose its withdrawal.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 68: Majority 72.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N.	Heald, J.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Henry, A.
Adair, R. A. S.	Hervey, Lord A.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Anson, hon. Col.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Anstey, T. C.	Howard, Lord E.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Armstrong, R. B.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Jervis, Sir J.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Bellew, R. M.	Kershaw, J.
Berkeley, C. L. G.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Blackall, S. W.	Lacy, H. C.
Blair, S.	Langston, J. H.
Bowles, Adm.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Bright, J.	Lewis, G. C.
Brocklehurst, J.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Carew, W. H. P.	Loveden, P.
Caulfeild, J. M.	Macnaghten, Sir E.
Chaplin, W. J.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Clay, J.	Manon, Visct.
Clay, Sir W.	Marshall, W.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Masterman, J.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Matheson, A.
Clifford, H. M.	Matheson, Col.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Cocks, T. S.	Melgund, Visct.
Compton, H. C.	Milner, W. M. E.
Copeland, Ald.	Monsell, W.
Cowan, C.	Morris, D.
Craig, W. G.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Crowder, R. B.	O'Connell, M. J.
Cubitt, W.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Paget, Lord A.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Paget, Lord C.
Davies, D. A. S.	Palmerston, Visct.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Parker, J.
Duncan, Visct.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Duncan, G.	Pelham, hon. D. A.
Duncuft, J.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Pilkington, J.
Dunne, Col.	Pinney, W.
Ebrington, Visct.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Power, Dr.
Enfield, Visct.	Rawdon, Col.
Fagan, W.	Reid, Col.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Ricardo, J. L.
Fitwilliam, hon. G.	Rich, H.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Richards, R.
Fox, R. M.	Romilly, Sir J.
French, F.	Russell, Lord J.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Russell, F. C. H.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Sandars, J.
Grattan, H.	Scrope, G. P.
Grenfell, C. P.	Seymour, Lord
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Sidney, Ald.
Grosvenor, Earl	Simeon, J.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Smith, J. B.
Harris, R.	Smythe, hon. G.
Hastie, A.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Hastie, A.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hawes, B.	Tennent, R. J.
Hayes, Sir E.	Thompson, Col.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.	Thornely, T.

Tufnell, H.	Wilson, J.
Turner, G. J.	Wilson, M.
Walpole, S. H.	Wood, W. P.
Watkins, Col. L.
Wellesley, Lord C.	TELLERS.
Willcox, B. M.	Hill, Lord M.
Williams, J.	Grey, R. W.

List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B.	Hood, Sir A.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Hornby, J.
Arkwright, G.	Horsman, E.
Bagot, hon. W.	Hume, J.
Baillie, H. J.	Law, hon. C. E.
Bateson, T.	Long, W.
Bennet, P.	Lopes, Sir R.
Bernard, Visct.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Best, J.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Bremridge, R.	Manners, Lord G.
Brisco, M.	Meux, Sir H.
Broadley, H.	Miles, W.
Brooke, Lord	Molesworth, Sir W.
Buck, L. W.	Morgan, O.
Chatterton, Col.	Mullings, J. R.
Conolly, T.	Naas, Lord
Cotton, hon. W. H. S.	Napier, J.
Disraeli, B.	Newport, Visct.
Dodd, G.	Packe, C. W.
Farrer, J.	Prime, R.
Forbes, W.	Spooner, R.
Forester, hon. G. C. W.	Stanley, E.
Fuller, A. E.	Stuart, H.
Gaskell, J. M.	Stuart, J.
Greenall, G.	Sullivan, M.
Greene, J.	Tollemache, J.
Grogan, E.	Verner, Sir W.
Guernsey, Lord	Walmsley, Sir J.
Gwyn, H.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Halford, Sir H.	Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Halsey, T. P.	Welby, G. E.
Hamilton, G. A.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Hamilton, Lord C.
Henley, J. W.	TELLERS.
Hildyard, R. C.	Beresford, W.
Hodgson, W. N.	Newdegate, C. N.

MR. HUME

moved the addition, at the end of the original resolution, of the words—"And that Lieutenant Colonel Braybrooke, Lieutenant Henderson, E. S. Waring, Esq., and John Selby, Advocate, he summoned to attend the said Committee."

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that if the last Amendment was a censure upon the Government, the present one was a censure upon the Committee. The more usual and natural course was to leave it to the Committee to decide what witnesses should be called, and he thought that the matter should be left entirely in the hands of the Committee. Why the House should interpose, or say by its resolution that the Committee were not to be trusted to decide as to what witnesses were to be called, he was not aware.

MR. HUME

stated, that the mails would leave to-morrow, and it would be desirable, in order to avoid any further de- lay, that the order for the attendance of the witnesses should be transmitted by that mail, which they would be enabled to do if the House at once decided the question.

MR. HAWES

said, that although one mail left to-morrow, still that the ordinary mail would not leave till the 20th of this month. The mail of to-morrow would go by way of Bombay, and there would be but the difference of a few days in the arrival of that and of the one of the 20th. He was perfectly prepared to move the reappointment of the same members who formed the Committee of last year, and he was prepared to nominate them at once, so that they might meet to-morrow, when he would be ready to state his reasons for objecting to any witnesses, or naming others, which the Committee might please to decide upon. He would also state that several witnesses were ready to be examined before the Committee; and inasmuch as the parties against the Governor of Ceylon had had the whole of the last year to produce their witnesses, and to substantiate their charges, it was not exceedingly unfair that the Committee should now hear some of the witnesses upon the other side.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 109: Majority 9.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E.	Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Adderley, C. B.	Duncuft, J.
Anstey, T. C.	Fagan, W.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Farrer, J.
Arkwright, G.	Forbes, W.
Bagot, hon. W.	Forester, hon. G. C. W.
Baillie, H. J.	Frewen, C. H.
Bateson, T.	Fuller, A. E.
Bennet, P.	Gaskell, J. M.
Beresford, W.	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Bernard, Visct.	Greenall, G.
Best, J.	Greene, J.
Blair, S.	Grogan, E.
Bremridge, R.	Guernsey, Lord
Bright, J.	Gwyn, H.
Brisco, M.	Halford, Sir H.
Broadley, H.	Halsey, T. P.
Brooke, Lord	Hamilton, G. A.
Buck, L. W.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Carew, W. H. P.	Heald, J.
Chatterton, Col.	Henley, J. W.
Cocks, T. S.	Henry, A.
Coles, H. B.	Hervey, Lord A.
Compton, H. C.	Hildyard, R. C.
Conolly, T.	Hodgson, W. N.
Cotton, hon. W. H. S.	Hood, Sir A.
Cubitt, W.	Hornby, J.
Disraeli, B.	Horsman, E.
Dodd, G.	Inglis, Sir R. H.

Kershaw, J.	Smythe, hon. G.
Lacy, H. C.	Spooner, R.
Law, hon. C. E.	Stanley, E.
Long, W.	Stuart, H.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Stuart, J.
Manners, Lord C. S.	Sullivan, M.
Manners, Lord G.	Taylor, T. E.
Meux, Sir H.	Thompson, Col.
Miles, W.	Tollemache, J.
Morgan, O.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Mullings, J. R.	Turner, G. J.
Naas, Lord	Verner, Sir W.
Napier, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Newdegate, C. N.	Walpole, S. H.
Newport, Visct.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Packe, C. W.	Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Pilkington, J.	Welby, G. E.
Prime, R.	Williams, J.
Reid, Col.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Repton, G. W. J.
Sidney, Ald.	TELLERS.
Simeon, J.	Hume, J.
Smith, J. B.	Molesworth, Sir W.

List of the NOES.
Abdy, T. N.	Hastie, A.
Adair, R. A. S.	Hastie, A.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hawes, B.
Anson, hon. Col.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J
Armstrong, R. B.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Hollond, R.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Howard, Lord E.
Bellew, R. M.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Berkeley, C. L. G.	Jervis, Sir J.
Bernal, R.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Blackall, S. W.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H
Bowles, Adm.	Langston, J. H.
Brocklehurst, J.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F
Caulfeild, J. M.	Lewis, G. C.
Cayley, E. S.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Chaplin, W. J.	Loveden, P.
Clay, Sir W.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Mahon, Visct.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Marshall, W.
Clifford, H. M.	Masterman, J.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Matheson, A.
Copeland, Ald.	Matheson, Col.
Craig, W. G.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Crowder, R. B.	Melgund, Visct.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Milner, W. M. E.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Monsell, W.
Davies, D. A. S.	Morris, D.
Duncan, Visct.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Duncan, G.	O'Connell, M. J.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Dunne, Col.	Paget, Lord A.
Ebrington, Visct.	Paget, Lord C.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Palmerston, Visct.
Enfield, Visct.	Parker, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Pelham, hon. D. A.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.	Pinney, W.
Fox, R. M.	Plowden, W. H. C.
French, F.	Power, Dr.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Rawdon, Col.
Grenfell, C. P.	Rich, H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Richards, R.
Grosvenor, Earl	Romilly, Sir J.
Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.	Russell, Lord J.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Russell, F. C. H.
Harris, R.	Sandars, J.

Scrope, G. P.	Wall, C. B.
Seymour, Lord	Wellesley, Lord C.
Smith, rt. hon. R. V.	Willcox, B. M.
Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.	Wilson, J.
Sotheron, T. H. S.	Wilson, M.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Wood, W. P.
Tennent, R. J.	TELLERS.
Thornely, T.	Grey, R. W.
Tufnell, H.	Hill, Lord M.

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till Tomorrow, without putting the Question.