HC Deb 11 February 1850 vol 108 cc643-61

Order read for resuming the further proceeding on Question for appointment of a Committee.

MR. HUME

said, that as one of those who had been selected to sit on this Committee, and as a Member of the Committee of last year, he felt bound to say that he could not expect that justice would be done to the important question which it was the object to investigate. When the noble Lord at the head of the Government objected to the recommendation that a Commission should go out to Ceylon and there examine on the spot the parties who were best able to give evidence, he (Mr. Hume) took the opportunity of saying that, as it was the prayer of the petitioners—and he had presented four petitions on the subject to the House—that evidence to prove their allegations should be taken by a Commission on the spot, because in no other way could a full and fair investigation of the facts be obtained, a Parliamentary Committee only would not be satisfactory. The noble Lord, however, objected to that, and left it to the Committee to send for evidence; and then he (Mr. Hume) suggested that if it really was intended by the Government to have a fair inquiry, the party whose conduct was impugned should have leave of absence, or retire from his station as Governor of Ceylon, in order that he and those under his control might not have it in their power to interfere to prevent such evidence being sent to England as might he necessary to elucidate the question. The noble Lord thought that that would have been an im- putation against Lord Torrington; but it was precisely the course which had been followed, he believed, in every case where high crimes and misdemeanours had been charged against a public functionary. In one of the petitions he had presented, it was alleged—and the parties stated that if opportunity were afforded, they were ready to prove the fact on oath—that persons had been prevented from coming forward to give evidence by the noble Lord-and the public officers. His present object was to guard against its being supposed that any satisfactory result could come out of the inquiry by this Committee; for unless they had full means of ascertaining the grounds of the discontent out of which the disturbance in Ceylon had arisen, the inquiry would be useless. Considering the means at the disposal of Lord Torrington, and the noble Secretary for the Colonies to keep back witnesses whose testimony might elucidate the facts, it was impossible that justice could be done; and he hoped the House would allow those who had expressed that opinion in their petitions, to come down and state what they knew of the means that had been resorted to by those in authority to prevent a full and fair investigation of all the facts of the case. He did not speak as to Lord Torrington personally, for he had no desire to make a personal matter of it. All that he wanted was the future better government of Ceylon; and until the whole facts were known, causes for turbulence and discontent would continue to exist in that colony.

MR. J. STUART

expressed himself unable to see how the House could possibly discharge its duty unless they had some assurance from the Government that the future proceedings of the Committee, if, indeed, it was to proceed at all, should be conducted in such a way, and under such circumstances, as really to elicit the truth. Circumstances more extraordinary than those under which the Committee was about to be reappointed, had never occurred. The present Motion was for a renewal of the Committee appointed last year to examine into certain grave charges and allegations. But without witnesses, or any facilities being afforded for the production of witnesses, the reappointment of that Committee was an idle ceremony. The statements of Members of it proved that all endeavours hitherto made to procure the attendance of the necessary witnesses, had been utterly baffled. He did not mean to say that no witnesses had been allowed to attend, but that if the Committee were now reappointed upon the game footing as that which they had occupied last Session, that the tribunal—a tribunal delegated by the House to inquire into the truth of certain accusations—would be in this singular position that they would have witnesses to rebut, but no witnesses to establish, the charge—witnesses for the defence, but none for the prosecution. [Mr. HAWES: No, no!] He heard some hon. Gentleman say "No, no." He thought it was the voice of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, but he would establish his position. The House could only proceed upon the authentic records of the Committee. Now, on one of the last days of the Committee's meeting, he found that the following resolution had been come to:— Tour Committee regret that, from the termination of the Session they have not been able to conclude their inquiries into the grievances in connexion with the administration and government of Ceylon, and especially into the causes of the late insurrection in that colony, and into the means adopted by the local Government for its suppression; but, from the gravity of the circum-stances which those inquiries have elicited, your Committee express their opinion that it is expedient that they should be reappointed next Session to pursue their investigation, and 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 at Ceylon, of Captain Watson, and such others whose evidence may be necessary to explain and establish the circumstances under which martial law was recently proclaimed in Ceylon, and to give information as to all proceedings which were thereon adopted by the Government. This resolution had been come to upon the 30th of July, and for this reason—that on the 28th of July a complaint had been made in this House, on the part of the, Committee, that without sending a commission to Ceylon, the investigation could not be satisfactorily carried out. This was on the 28th of July. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, interposing, with great gravity and dignity, had stated, that although he could not support the Motion for a Commission, yet he thought that that Motion would be readily withdrawn if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give the House an assurance that the Committee would be this Session reappointed, and that, in the meantime, and before the Session ended, the Committee, through their chairman, should communicate with the Government as to the witnesses and papers which might be required, so as that they might be sent for in the interval, and be ready to be produced when the Committee was reappointed. The course recommended by the right hon. Baronet was adopted by the noble Lord. But what followed? They were now here continuing a discussion commenced by a new complaint brought by the chairman of the Committee. He complained that the endeavours made by him as chairman of the Committee, between the 30th of last July and the next meeting of Parliament, to obtain witnesses, had been baffled by Earl Grey. Now, the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, on a former night, that he had carefully read from Hansard the words which he had actually used upon the 28th of July, because he feared that there might arise some misunderstanding or misconception relative to what he had actually said on that occasion. But the noble Lord must pardon him (Mr. Stuart) if he said, that, in his opinion, the noble Lord referred to the words which he used last Session, without a sufficient reference to the context of the passage quoted, and without enabling the House properly to ascertain how the matter had been actually left between the Committee and the Government. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon ended his speech of the 28th of July last as follows:— He, therefore, could not support the Motion now before the House; and, indeed, he did not think that his hon. Friend would press it, if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give the House an assurance, on the part of the Government, that, at the commencement of the next Session, he would consent to the reappointment of the Committee, for the purpose of pursuing the inquiry. In that case, the Committee could meet on Monday, and communicate, through their chairman, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, both with respect to papers and to additional witnesses that they would think necessary, when the Committee met again at the commencement of next Session."—Hansard, cvii. 1098. Such was the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. To that proposal he (Mr. Stuart), who was present, understood the noble Lord to accede. He understood the noble Lord to mean that the Committee should assemble on the following Monday; that they should consider what arrangements were to be made for summoning witnesses; and that their chairman should, on their behalf, communicate with the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies. What had taken place since? On the 30th of July, the Committee had passed the following 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. There was the noble Lord acceding to the suggestion made in the House, leaving it to the chairman to arrange with the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the necessary witnesses. Well, but no sooner did the hon. Gentleman put himself in communication with the noble Lord, than the latter replied, in substance, that he did not recognise the hon. Gentleman, as the chairman of a Committee invested with delegated power at all. The noble Lord, in fact, stated that the Committee had no right to delegate any such power as that of naming the witnesses to be summoned; and that, even if they had such a right, he would not consent to their request, upon the ground that it would occasion considerable expense. On these grounds there was a flat refusal given to the request for the summoning of witnesses. On the reassembling of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire having been thus treated by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, and the decision of that noble Lord having been confirmed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, it seemed to him to be clear and palpable—first, that this had been an evasion of the understanding come to, and that means had been taken to baffle the endeavours of the Committee to have before them the witnesses they thought proper should be examined. This was a state of things which he thought involved grave matter of censure against the Government. But there had been still more immediate and direct means taken to baffle the attempts of the Committee to arrive at the truth. Not only had the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies not acceded to the request conveyed to him that he should attend before the Committee to give certain explanations; but when the Committee put the noble Earl in possession of the points on which they wished for information from him, he made no reply whatever to one of the inquiries. The following questions were, as it was stated in the report of the Committee, privately forwarded to the noble Earl:— Whether your Lordship has received any copies of the proceedings of the courts-martial (including details of the evidence taken upon the trials of the prisoners), which were held in Ceylon in 1848, and information, private or public, of how each of the courts was constituted, which have not been laid before the Committee now sitting on the affairs of Ceylon; and if you have not, whether your Lordship has ordered any such to be transmitted to you, or whether it is your intention so to do? To this the noble Earl replied, upon the 11th of July, as follows:— In reply I have to request you to acquaint the Committee that I possess no information which is not contained in the papers already before them on any of the points mentioned in your letter; and that with regard to the opinion I may have formed on these points, or the reasons which have led me to the conclusions I have adopted, I should not think it consistent with the duty imposed upon me by the office I have the honour to hold, to add anything to what I have said in the despatches which I have addressed to the Governor of Ceylon, and which have been laid before Parliament. The second question, the House would observe, as to whether the documents had been ordered by the noble Earl, was not even alluded to in his answers. He (Mr. Stuart) held that, under such circumstances, the Committee, unless they had some assurance that information would really be supplied to them, might go on for another Session without being at all nearer the end of their appointment. What he wished to know was, whether Her Majesty's Government intended to afford the necessary facilities or not? He quite dissented from the principles as to the mode of conducting the business of Committee, held by the noble Lord. If a chairman could not represent a Committee for such purposes as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire had represented his Committee, then the appointment of a chairman was perfectly nugatory and useless. Was it necessary for all the fifteen Members of the Committee to have gone before the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary to make a statement as to their wishes? Unless some satisfactory assurance were given by Government as to the production of witnesses, the reappointment of the Committee was idle—it was a Committee merely for the purpose of whitewashing the Governor of Ceylon, and he would rather vote against it altogether. He could tell the Government that such proceedings were not to be turned into a farce. He did not intend to impute to the noble Lord any deliberate improper intention beyond this—and this he did charge him with—that the noble Lord was stretching to the utmost his powers over a majority of the House, in order to pre- vent a due and proper prosecution of this inquiry.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that although the questions the hon. and learned Gentleman put had been distinctly answered the other day, he would endeavour very shortly to explain what were the views with which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had moved for the appointment of the Committee of which he had given notice. As he (Lord J. Russell) understood the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, what he meant was this—that he supposed by the resolution the chairman of the Committee should communicate to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies with respect to the witnesses whom he and the Committee should think necessary to have produced before them. Accordingly, the Committee next day agreed on two witnesses being summoned, one of whom was Captain Watson. And they had been summoned in consequence. But if his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had been told, when that last resolution of the Committee was moved, "Now, mind this resolution means that your chairman of the Committee is to have absolute power over the Secretary of State, and is to order him, during the next six months, to do as we please, and he is to have no discretion or option "—why, then, his hon. Friend would have refused to agree to any such resolution. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark would, he thought, hardly assert that it would not be a great stretch of the powers of the Committees of the House if they had complete control over the Secretaries of State. If there were three Committees appointed at the end of the Session, and that the chairman were to have power over the three Secretaries of State, with respect to ordering any witnesses they pleased, he was sure that was a stretch of authority to which the House would object. With regard to the proceedings of the Committee, he could only say that when they sat they would have full power to summon the witnesses, and every facility would be given to them by his noble Friend the Secretary of State to arrive at the facts of the case. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that in the inquiry there was one part of the question to be entirely disregarded—and that was the defence—and that there was nothing to be heard on the part of the defence—it was not the condition on which he (Lord J. Russell) assented to the appointment of the Committee. The principle on which he understood the Committee to be appointed was, let the accusation be heard, but let not the defence be suppressed.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, that there was not one hon. Gentleman in the House who had ever asked for the suppression of the defence. What they were anxious for was, that the defence should not be brought on before the evidence for the accusation had been concluded. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had represented the matter as if the Committee had delegated powers to their chairman to dictate to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies what witnesses he was to call. This was not the case. The noble Lord had stated the matter more fairly when he said that there were two courses open for the noble Earl to adopt. He might assume that the Committee had instructed their chairman either to consult with him as to what witnesses should be called, or to dictate to him what their names were to be. Now, the noble Lord had, upon the present occasion, brought forward only the second of these interpretations. But, in his (Mr. Adderley's) opinion, the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies had no right to assume that the Committee had instructed their Chairman to dictate to him. What the Committee had done was this—they had instructed their chairman to consult with the noble Earl upon the subject. When the Committee met after the discussion in this House, they had suggested the names of two witnesses; but on these gentlemen being mentioned, the whole Committee immediately said that there were others absolutely necessary, especially for the elucidation of matters relating to the long continuance of the enforcement of martial law. It was said to be impossible to get these witnesses without writing to Ceylon; and, as it had been determined that a Commission should not be sent out, the only alternative was to write out to the colony. That was the only course the Committee could take; it was the course which, he believed, had been agreed to by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Colonies, after considerable discussion; and he confessed that he had felt astounded when the hon. Gentleman repudiated the arrangement. The only course open to the Committee was to send out to the colony, in order to procure the necessary witnesses, and afterwards communicate with the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department. The noble Lord had, however, demurred to the authority of the chairman; and had, in fact, stopped his mouth, although he (Mr. Adderley) thought the noble Earl would have done well to have discussed the merits of the case with the chairman of the Committee. The noble Earl might have demurred to such witnesses, and alleged that they were improper ones; he might have asked on what grounds they were called, and challenged the necessity for producing them. But the noble Earl had not done that, but had rested his objection upon a ground which he (Mr. Adderley) thought was indefensible. He had only one other remark to address to the House. The noble Earl had objected to the expense to which the production of these witnesses would put the country. He (Mr. Adderley) confessed astonishment at such an objection. The noble Earl stated that the witnesses would involve a charge of from 400l. to 700l. each. Now, although many witnesses might not be worth so much money, if ever there was a case in which witnesses were worth their weight in gold a hundred times over, it was in the case of these Ceylon witnesses. The colonists complained that the courts-martial were open for a considerable time after the rebellion was over—they alleged that several of the Queen's subjects had been tried by these courts, and had been put to death by mistake. Now, without saying that these charges were true—he trusted they were not—he should rejoice to find the Colonial Office consenting fairly to conduct an investigation into them. It was essential both to the credit of the country and of the Government, that the conduct

Lord Torrington should be investigated.

Far be it from him to wish to inculpate Lord Torrington, and much should be rejoice if the charges brought against him should prove to be unfounded. It would be unfortunate if he were inculpated without investigation, and it would be most disastrous if Her Majesty's Government should put themselves forward as his advocates before the conclusion of the inquiry.

MR. DISRAELI

said, it was not his intention to oppose the nomination of the Committee, and he would refrain from reviving the debate of the other day as to the affairs of Ceylon; but as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made an observation respecting the conduct of the chairman of the Committee for making statements on the authority of a certain document placed in his hands, he (Mr. Disraeli) was bound to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire had been fully justified in making those statements and assertions. He gave no opinion with respect to the veracity or authenticity of the statement: the witness to whom it referred would be brought before the Committee, when he could be fully examined, and the truth of the case, no doubt, established. He thought it right to state that the chairman had only summoned at his own instance three witnesses—two of them filling the high official post of Colonial Secretary; the other, an eminent merchant, who held an office in the household. He had not, therefore, attempted to substantiate the case he had brought forward by partial witnesses, or by the evidence of persons whose opinions ought not to have great influence over the House. His hon. Friend placed the matter in a still more favourable view in that respect by reminding him that one of those witnesses whom he had just mentioned had been summoned by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies. As very few had read the evidence with great attention, the House might probably be unacquainted with the fact, that it had been by no means confined to substantiating the accusation, but, on the contrary, that much of it was from witnesses vindicating the conduct of the Governor, and who had been summoned by the Colonial Office. From the very first he had endeavoured, as much as he could, to keep the Committee out of the House of Commons, and he thought he had endeavoured to conduct it with temper and impartiality, and that the present unfortunate proceeding would not have happened if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had accepted his proposal. He was prepared to resume that investigation; but he was bound to say, he did so with no very sanguine hope that the result would be satisfactory to the House or to the country. It was not necessary for him to introduce to the notice of the House statements which should be very severely investigated by the tribunal of which he was a Member; but seeing what would arise, he must express his sincere conviction that an effort was about to be made to prevent that thorough and impartial investigation of the truth which the honour of the Government and the justice of the country so much required.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, it must be clear to the House, from the present discussion, that the Committee was going to its labours under difficult circumstances. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, the hon. chairman of the Committee, and the hon. and learned Member for Newark, had all said they were conscious—they were sure—that there was to be a power employed by the Government to interfere with the investigation submitted to the Committee; that the official powers of the colonial authorities were to be employed for the purpose of braving the investigation. Now, that was the charge. That was the grave charge brought against the Government at the present moment; and each of the Gentlemen who had made it, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Newark, were Members of the Committee; and they all said that they were going into the Committee, that they were Members of it and that they were going to make the investigation. Why, the whole proceeding was one that would be characterised out of doors as inconsistent upon their parts. The idea of going into a Committee, preceding it with a charge against the Government, and saying they could not do justice, that they were sure to be misinterpreted, and stopped, and that they could not obtain a thorough investigation, seemed strange. The real proceedings on the part of those Gentlemen ought to be, to refuse to be Members of the Committee. In justice to themselves they ought to make a statement to that effect. They charged the Colonial Secretary and the Under Secretary of State with an intention to prevent the investigation of truth: and he wanted to know if ever there was a charge more grave brought against a Government, or one which, if true, would tend to disgrace the character of a Government more than that? Upon what ground had that charge been made against the Government? Because he held that when a certain number of Members of the House of Commons got up and made a charge against the Government of that description, so grave, he supposed they had got evidence in support of their opinion. He presumed that they would not hazard imputations—that they ought to be grounded on some conviction in their minds resting on evidence; and if he charged a Member of the Government with dishonesty, he hoped he would have evidence in support of the accusation. Well, here were five Members charging the Colonial Secretary with the most se- rious dishonesty. That was the truth of the charge, that he (the Colonial Secretary) was going into the investigation with a desire to prevent the investigation of truth. How did they get that? We had got a dependency—Ceylon. An insurrection broke out there. That insurrection was suddenly suppressed. It was sup. pressed after a declaration of martial law, and certain proceedings which he was not bound to characterise; and the result had been immediate peace, and peace from that time to the present. Now, Ceylon was called a colony. It was not a colony in the common acceptation of the term. It was a dependency—a large dependency—filled with a population, not English—wholly foreign. We had a small body of Englishmen therein residing, amidst a hostile population, with a governor at its head representing England. Now, if that House was to be made the means of, upon all occasions, tying the hands, paralysing the mind, disturbing the judgment, and overturning the determination of those men who represented England in those distant colonies, there could be no more dangerous office than that so undertaken; and he saw a tendency in that House and in this country—he was going to say for the purpose of obtaining a sort of pitiful popularity—to so carp and cavil at those who did represent this country, and who endeavoured, under her glorious flag, to subdue anticivilisation at various regions of the earth, and to extend that dominion, which, by its extension, was a blessing—he sad, he saw such a tendency to paralyse our power, and those who represented us, in all the various quarters of the globe, and so to interfere with every enterprise which was English, that he deemed it his duty, as one representative of this country, to stand up and enter his protest, solemn, and sincere, and earnest, against such a proceeding. Why, what had they got upon this occasion? He thought Lord Torrington's great mistake had been, that he ever handled a pen. If he had not written despatches, but only acted, he might have been a very good Governor; and he (Mr. Roebuck) did not know whether he had written the despatches himself, but he presumed he had. But being a Governor in the midst of a hostile population, as he was—and he (Mr. Roebuck) knew the population—he had, in reality, no more to do than any other man, to prevent the effusion of blood; and if he had tampered with the blood of a hostile population of that sort, we should have had a war in Ceylon, and where we had one man slain now we might have had a thousand. But because hon. Gentlemen with refined feelings had received representations that certain things which they said had been done contrary to law, they were frightened. What was contrary to law in Ceylon? Let this be understood. Ceylon was a conquered dependency. By the very fact of its being conquered, the law of Ceylon was a law. The English law was only introduced there by the direct intervention of the Sovereign, or by an Act of Parliament. Whatever the Sovereign chose to do, supposing no Act of Parliament interfered, went as far as the Sovereign desired; and he wanted to know if it were not law—the hon. and learned Member for Newark was so learned about constitutional law that he would set him right if he was wrong—he wanted to know if it were not law, constant and well understood, that a conquered dependency had the law of a conquered dependency until it was altered, either by the determination of the monarch of England, or by an Act of Parliament? He wanted some one to show him the Act of Parliament which did prevent the Governor from proclaiming martial law. He, unfortunately for himself, had seen martial law proclaimed even where there was a constitution. He had seen that martial law supported in that House. He had known persons under that martial law to be convicted and executed, and he had found no sympathy expressed in that House in consequence of that martial law. But he wanted to know whether it was illegal for Lord Torrington to have proclaimed martial law in Ceylon? If it was not illegal, his Lordship might have proclaimed it, and he might also have appointed the tribunals which tried the prisoners; and though it might be said that he was cruel, that he was imperious, that he did things which a mild and merciful man ought not to have done, yet he (Mr. Roebuck) judged by the result that peace had been maintained in that island from that time to this. He had been told that there was a judge there who opposed the Governor. Did anybody know the history of English judges in India? Was it not notorious that the moment you set an English lawyer by the side of him representing the Government, they were sure to get into disputes?—and he believed that the reason was, that English lawyers were not statesmen. ["Hear, hear!"] The statement might appear ludicrous, but every one acquainted with the history of India knew the fact perfectly well. The hon. Member for Montrose ought to know what India was; he ought to know that the moment we had lawyers there, they went to loggerheads at once. He had no faith in the prudence of such men. He had great faith in the conscience and in the desire of English lawyers to do good, but he had no faith in their prudence, and they were the last men he would have to govern a country. [Laughter.] This might excite laughter, and yet every man going home that night would say upon reflection that he (Mr. Roebuck) was right. But, coming hack to the statement of the hon. Gentlemen he referred to already, he asked was not this an unwise and impolitic way to deal with our distant colonies? We had got the question of the Chinese ports before; we had now got the question of Ceylon; both were pretty nearly in the same district of the globe, very much in the same difficult situation, and what were we, for party and personal purposes, about? [Sir W. MOLES-WOBTH: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Southwark had nothing to do with this matter; he (Mr. Roebuck) agreed with that hon. Baronet in his views of colonial government, and could assure him he was not going to interfere with him. But now the debate had reference to distant dependencies held by force and not inhabited by English colonies; and the House could not take upon itself a more mischievous office than that of endeavouring to paralyse the efforts of others in those distant dependencies, where men are always alive and fearful lest they should be called to account, by the difference of party politics affording to some individuals a handle to annoy and disturb an Administration. Any of those hon. Gentlemen, then, who believed that by going into this investigation he would be baffled by the Colonial Minister, would do much more for his own character and the country if he declared that he would withdraw himself from the Committee, and not go into an inquiry with this sort of preparatory means of exculpating himself, if he failed to support the imputation.

MR. BAILLIE

observed, that he would not go into the question of the justifiability of proclaiming martial law in Ceylon, as that subject was not now fairly under the consideration of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, who had just spoken, had said that certain charges were being made against the Government. The hon. and learned Member spoke of there being charges, but he did not know what those charges were. What charges had been made by the Gentlemen to whom the hon. and learned Member had referred? The only charge they had preferred against the Government was founded on a refusal to send for witnesses; and he had substantiated that charge by a reference to the correspondence. The only accusations made, therefore, were those which had been proved before the House. He did not wish to enter into any further discussion on the subject, but he very much feared he should be obliged to bring forward charges—not against the Government, because he would not believe they were capable of countenancing such a thing—but against their officers, on account of the persecution going on in Ceylon against persons of the highest classes as well as of the lowest, and to ask for the persons thus persecuted the protection of that House.

MR. HUME

said, that long as he had been in that House, he never had heard a more tyrannical speech than that of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave them his notion of what should be the law in the colonies—the will of Lord Torrington was to be the law in Ceylon. But it would have been well if the hon. and learned Gentleman was made aware that Ceylon had a constitution, and that Her Majesty sent out a Governor there with certain instructions, and that courts had been established there with English judges to preside over them. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the general character of English lawyers; and he (Mr. Hume) was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman, at least, had shown the House his unfitness to preside over the administration of the law, or as a statesman. Was it not too much, after human blood had been shed and great barbarities had taken place, that those who advocated the cause of humanity were to be called popularity hunters? If there was any one in the House who deserved to be called a popularity hunter, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He remembered when the hon. and learned Member stood at the bar of the House advocating the cause of the rebels of Canada, and he would leave it to him to say how his language then was to be made to agree with that he had just made use of. He was one of those who held that, in the present case, the principle of fair play had not been maintained, and he thought that the public had a right to complain. They had been told that Ceylon was not a colony—that it was a distant dependency of Great Britain, subject to the will of the Governor for the time being; that Lord Torrington might do with the colony just as he pleased: that certainly was language which he had not expected to hear from the quarter whence it proceeded. He did not expect to hear it said that Lord Torrington could, by his own authority alone, take away from every individual the protection of the law; and it was even too much to say that the rules of the ordinary courts-martial were not remain in force in Ceylon. Was it not too much, considering the state of Ceylon, that military law should have been kept in force for upwards of six weeks? and now it appeared that none of the courts of law would question any of the acts done under the authority of Lord Torrington. It appeared to him most strange that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield should have expressed anything like approbation of such a course of proceeding. His hon. and learned Friend must really, in the course of last night, have slept off all his good and ancient opinions, and risen from his bed this morning a very different man from what he had hitherto been—not the man that he had always been taken for—not the anxious and ardent supporter of liberty, ready to resist any attack upon the rights of the subject. Now, his hon. and learned Friend had stood forth in the character of an advocate of a state of things in which the courts of law were shut, and redress for injury or grievance denied. By the act of Lord Torrington, the property of every man might be confiscated, and his son shot; and in consequence of the Act of Indemnity there was no remedy to the suffering parties. To that the sanction of the British Crown had been given, and 18 individuals were executed without the interposition of a judge-advocate; no such officer was present at those trials, no senior officer presided at any of the trials, and the unfortunate victims were led from the courts-martial and shot: was not that a practice in the conduct of courts-martial sufficient to make the hair of any military man stand on end? In the Committee he asked if any report or account of the proceedings had come home, and he received an answer in the negative; he then moved the Committee that they should put a similar question to the Commander-in-Chief, and the answer which they received from the Horse Guards was "No." Now, he would ask the House, had the noble Lord given his sanction to those proceedings without any documentary evidence of their nature or character? Not content with the inquiries made in the Committee and at the Horse Guards, he moved the Committee to request the attendance of Earl Grey; but his Lordship declined to come, and now it only remained for him (Mr. Hume) to ask in the House whether Her Majesty's Government had sanctioned the execution of 18 individuals? They had been executed, and not a word reached this country to explain or excuse such a violation of justice and law. Anxious for information upon these subjects, he could not bring himself to believe that any man acting in the character of a British Minister could have been induced so to proceed on no evidence other than that which was contained in the blue book; was it to be endured that Lord Torrington should disregard the aid of a law officer of the Crown who had been deputed by the Government to give him advice? It was well known that, without taking the opinion of that officer, Lord Torrington directed the confiscation of the property of all persons who were found absent from their dwellings, and for the more effectually carrying those designs into execution, he sent out parties of military to seize the persons of individuals who might so have absented themselves from their homes. Then came the statement that Lord Torrington confiscated nothing more than perishable articles grain and cattle. But what would the House say if they found that jewellery and clothes to a large amount had been confiscated and sold by public sale? With such deeds before them, and with the striking fact that men were executed without anything like a lawful trial—with those broad facts before them, the general feeling in this country was that there existed great ground for complaint—that there was great ground for saying that the authorities in this case were acting unfairly because they were acting ignorantly; and had it not at length become the duty of the House of Commons to take measures for ascertaining the truth and making it known? In the prosecution of that object it was rather too much that they should be taunted with popularity hunting.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that though his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose might be somewhat angry, yet he felt mite convinced that that hon. Gentleman did not by any means wish to misrepresent the real state of the facts, or to mislead the House by any colouring which he might give them. He doubted not for a moment that his hon. Friend was influenced by the kindest feelings, but strong feeling did not always contribute to clearsightedness; and he therefore would on no account attempt to cast any imputation upon his hon. Friend, but he could not go back from the propositions which he had laid down; he could not bring himself to think that there was any hope of a successful issue to the labours of the Committee when a large number of Gentlemen went into it predetermined to believe that there was no chance of getting at the truth. His hon. Friend had accused him of favouring tyranny; but that charge he was sure the House would regard as groundless; for they could not have for gotten that he drew a distinction between colonies and settlements; between a country peopled chiefly by Englishmen, who were governed by English laws, and a territorial conquest which a small body of Englishmen held by force; and if his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose did not at once understand that distinction, he had little hope that any observations which it would be possible for him that evening to make in the House, would greatly assist the mind of his hon. Friend on the subject. His hon. Friend had told the House that they had reason to complain. Of what? Of the Government of Lord Torrington, he supposed. Well, then, if his hon. Friend thought so, he ought to impeach Lord Torrington; or he ought rather to accuse the Colonial Minister. It was nonsense to talk about Lord Torrington, for if all that hon. Members in that House said was true, the Colonial Minister ought to be an object of accusation; and if that Minister were accused, his hon. Friend would find him (Mr. Roebuck) as ardent an advocate—he would say nothing about his own ability as an advocate, but he would find him as ardent an advocate as any in that House. Let his hon. Friend charge Earl Grey, let him lay a good ground for that charge, and he would find no warmer supporter than he (Mr. Roebuck) should prove himself; but he objected to unjust imputations, for their effect always must be to weaken all fair imputations. The noble Lord on the Treasury bench sat smiling at these imputations, as if he thought them ridiculous; the world thought them ridiculous, and he (Mr. Roebuck) had the misfortune in this case to agree with the world.

Question put, and agreed to.

The following were named of the Committee: Mr. Baillie, Mr. Hume, Sir Joshua Walmsley, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Hogg, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Charles Villiers, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Adderley, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Lord Hotham, Mr. M'Cullagh, and Major Blackall:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the quorum,