HC Deb 26 July 1850 vol 113 cc335-7

The Order of the Day having been moved for going into Committee of Supply.

MR. BAILLIE

said, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating the course he intended to pursue with respect to the report made by the Ceylon Committee, and the more so, both as the subject itself was one of great importance, and as the report was perhaps the most singular, inconsistent, and extraordinary document which had ever emanated from a Committee of that House. He must in the first place remind the House of the object for which that Committee was appointed, namely, to inquire into the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the proceedings which had taken place in Ceylon, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House. The Committee had sat for nearly two years; a vast amount of public money was expended in bringing over witnesses from Ceylon, a vast amount of very important evidence had been collected, and the Committee had come to the extraordinary resolution of not reporting either their opinion to the House, or the evidence which had been taken before them. The only resolution to which they had come was, that the evidence they had taken should be recommended to the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government—that was to say, that the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Government, recommended to that very Government the serious consideration of the evidence taken before them. Now, he need not say that he utterly repudiated having anything whatever to do with that report, which he believed to be discreditable to the Committee, and not very respectful to that House. The first report stated— Your Committee deeply regret that that House did not see fit to acquiesce in the recommendation submitted to them at the close of the last Session, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire on the spot into the circumstances connected with the suppression of the late insurrection in Ceylon. That first resolution, he humbly submitted, contained an implied censure on the decision of a majority of that House; the House decided by a majority last year that there should be no Commission, and therefore, the Committee, he must say, made a reflection on the decision of the House. Again, the Committee declared they found themselves unable to make a complete report on some of the various matters into which they were directed to inquire. Now, this implied that there were some matters on which they were in a position to report; and if so, was it not the duty of the Committee to obey the instructions they had received from that House? The Committee went on to say they were of opinion that the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to the evidence taken in the course of this inquiry. Then, why should not the serious attention of the House be called to that evidence? That was, of course, with the view of the Government agreeing on some measure, or coming to some conclusion; but the Committee stated that they were unable to come to any conclusion whatever. They then recommended that a Royal Commission should be appointed to proceed to Ceylon—precisely what the House determined should not be done last year—to ascertain what changes might be necessary for the better government of the country, unless some step should be forthwith taken by the Government which might obviate the necessity of further intervention. Now, was it possible for the House to discover the sense of this expression, or what the Committee could possibly mean when they said that "some step should be taken?" Their meaning might possibly be understood by Her Majesty's Government, of which there was a Member on the Committee. The authors of that resolution stated that their intention was, that the Governor of Ceylon should be recalled, and as such it was accepted by the Under Secretary of the Colonies; but if that was the intention, surely it was the duty of the Committee to have stated it in plain terms, and not to have insinuated it in the manner they had done. He had thus stated to the House the objections he entertained against the resolutions of the Committee, and the House must be aware that at this very late period of the Session it was quite impossible for a private Member to obtain a day to bring a subject of this nature under consideration. In these circumstances, all he wished at present to do was to give notice that at the earliest possible period of the next Session he should move that the evidence taken before the Committee be laid on the table, and should call the attention of the House to it.