CEYLON.

HC Deb 27 May 1851 vol 117 cc6-98

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he was well aware that he must draw largely on the indulgence of the House in again bringing the subject of the grievances of Ceylon-under the notice of Parliament. He could assure the House that it gave him no pleasure or satisfaction to bring forward that Motion. He was impelled solely by a sense of public duty—of that duty which, as the late Chairman of the Ceylon Committee, he owed to that House. Indeed, he understood that a very general feeling prevailed on both sides of the House, that the question could not have been allowed to rest where it was left by the Ceylon Committee at the end of the last Session of Parliament. It was now, indeed, no longer a question in which the interests of a colony only were concerned. It was a question in which the interests of all our colonies were deeply involved; it was a question in which the honour and character of this country were involved; it was a question whether a Committee appointed by that House had duly and properly discharged the important duties that were entrusted to them. These were the grounds on which he had felt it to be his duty to bring this question before the House, and, in so doing, he should find it necessary to divide the question into two parts. First of all, he must call the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Ceylon Committee; and, afterwards, he would advert to the evidence on which he grounded the Resolutions which he should have the honour to submit to the House. Before he proceeded further, perhaps it might be as well that he should remind the House of the Reso- lution under which the Ceylon Committee was first appointed—a Resolution, be it remembered, passed unanimously in that House. It was a Resolution framed with peculiar care, owing to the interference of Her Majesty's Government and of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes). It was, therefore, a Resolution in which the duty of the Committee was clearly defined and distinctly laid down. That Resolution was as follows:— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in the Crown Colonies of Ceylon and British Guiana in connexion with the administration and government of those dependencies, and to report their opinion whether any measures can be adopted for the redress of those grievances of which there may be shown great reason to complain, and whether any measure can be adopted for the better administration and government of those dependencies. That Resolution was altered at the instance of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, expressly for the purpose of preventing the Committee inquiring into any question respecting any grievances in connexion with the free-trade measures introduced by the Government. It was impossible for language to express more clearly what was the object and intention of the House of Commons. The Committee was instructed to report to the House whether any grievances existed in the colonies of Ceylon and British Guiana of which the inhabitants had reason to complain; and did the Committee in their report follow the instructions of the House of Commons? The Committee, after two years' inquiry, did not think fit in their report to inform the House of Commons whether any grievances existed or not in the colony of Ceylon. But then they were instructed to report to the House of Commons whether any measures could he adopted for the better administration and government of the colony. Again, he asked, did the Committee follow their instructions? No; they did not think fit to make any report whatever on that subject; but they referred the whole matter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, into whose conduct the Committee was virtually appointed to inquire. And here a question naturally arose—What induced the Committee thus to disregard the instructions of the House of Commons, and virtually to defeate the intentions of that House? That would require some explanation, and if the House would extend its indulgence to him, he did not despair of furnishing that explanation. When first he had the honour to bring the subject of the grievances of Ceylon under the notice of Parliament, it certainly never occurred to him to call upon the House of Commons to inflict pains and penalties either on the Governor of Ceylon, or on any of his subordinate officers in the government of that colony, for although well aware that misgovernment and discontent had existed in the colony, he Mr. Baillie) was also well aware that the conduct of the Governor had received the entire approbation of Her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies had assumed and taken upon himself all the responsibilities of those acts which he had sanctioned; and therefore he (Mr. Baillie) stated at the time that he held the Secretary of State for the Colonies to be responsible. Such, however, did not appear to be the view of the case taken by the majority of the Ceylon Committee, for all the ingenuity of the Committee appeared to be directed, in framing their report, to devise the means whereby the Secretary of State for the Colonies might be exempted from all blame, irrespective altogether of what might be the consequence to Lord Torrington, or of the fate of that noble Lord. How was that to be accomplished? The Committee were called on to express an opinion favourable or unfavourable to the Government of Lord Torrington. If the Committee were of opinion that the conduct of Lord Torrington was deserving of censure, it followed as a matter of course that the conduct of Earl Grey, the Secretary for the Colonies, who sanctioned and approved of the acts of Lord Torrington, was equally deserving of censure. Now it would appear as if the Committee were anxious to escape from this difficulty, for they came to the extraordinary resolution not to make any report at all to the House of Commons on the merits of the case; but at the same time they came to a private understanding with the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), that Lord Torrington should be forthwith removed. [Mr. HAWES: No, no!] And thus it was hoped substantial justice would be done to the inhabitants of Ceylon without wounding the amour propre of a Colonial Minister. But in order to prevent that manifest injustice from striking too forcibly on the attention of the House, it was at the same time industriously circulated that Lord Torrington was to be removed in consequence of some supposed private mis- understanding; whilst the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies stated that he would be at all times prepared to defend all the public acts of Lord Torrington's Government. [Mr. HAWES: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman assented to that, and he would now have an opportunity of redeeming that pledge. But in the meantime he (Mr. Baillie) might he permitted to observe that a more unjust course, as regarded the interests of Lord Torrington, the worst enemies of that noble Lord could not have devised, for by the very act of his removal immediately after the inquiry, he stood condemned in the public mind, without having the advantage of defending or exculpating himself. The hon. Under Secretary (Mr. Hawes) seemed to have objected to his statement that a private understanding existed that Lord Torrington should he recalled. Now, he would recall the subject to the hon. Gentleman's recollection. It would be probably in his recollection, that in the report of the Committee it appeared that a draught of a report had been drawn up by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Hotham), in which there was the following passage:— Finding that the report made by a Committee of the Executive Council in Ceylon upon the general condition of the island is now in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that its recommendations involve 'very extensive alterations in the existing establishments of the island,' your Committee recommend their reappointment at the commencement of the next Session, unless any measure should in the meantime be adopted which may obviate the necessity of further investigation. He (Mr. Baillie) asked the noble Lord who proposed that Resolution to explain what he meant by it; and he said, "It must be obvious what it means. I mean the immediate recall of Lord Torrington." He (Mr. Baillie) turned round to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes) and said, "Is that the meaning you attach to the Resolution?" "Certainly," said the hon. Gentleman; "I attach that meaning to the Resolution;" and the hon. Under Secretary afterwards voted for that Resolution. He (Mr. Baillie) did not see how they could have a clearer explanation of the fact. Now, the Committee having thus come to a Resolution not to make any report on the merits of the case to the House of Commons, they adopted another Resolution, under the circumstances of the case, still more extraordi- nary. They came to the resolution not to report their evidence taken by them as a Select Committee of the House of Commons to the House, but to report it to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, into whose conduct, as he had stated, the Committee had been virtually appointed to inquire, thus making the Secretary of State the sole judge in his own case, in spite of the remonstrances of those Members of the Committee who said such a course involved a direct breach of the privileges of that House—an opinion the truth of which he (Mr. Baillie) believed Mr. Speaker had since confirmed. Now that last resolution was adopted on the ground that letters of a private and confidential nature had been laid before the Committee which ought not to be made public. But what was remarkable was that this Resolution had been carried by the votes of those at whoso instances the witnesses had been compelled to produce those private and confidential letters, amongst the foremost of whom was the hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Colonies. In order that there should he no mistake on that point, he would, with the permission of the House, now proceed to show how those private and confidential letters came to be laid before the Committee. On referring to the evidence laid before the Committee in 1849, it would be found that a witness appeared before the Committee named Thomas Young M'Christie, a barrister in Lincoln's-inn. That gentleman stated that he appeared there as the agent of certain parties in Ceylon, who were anxious to bring their grievances before the Committee. He was asked whether he could speak to the facts he had to bring under the notice of the Committee of his own personal knowledge? He said he could not, but he would give the evidence as he had received it from his constituents. After consultation it was decided that such evidence should be received by the Committee, subject to the test that the statements made should be proved afterwards by direct evidence. On this understanding Mr. M'Christie was allowed to proceed, and in the course of his evidence he gave the following statement:— I ought to have stated when speaking of the Governor's severity, that the inhabitants have informed me, as an instance of his severity, that when the priest was convicted at Kandy, several proctors and others were in court, and they were satisfied that the man was perfectly innocent, although convicted by the court-martial; and they went to the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Selby, and got him to go to the Governor to beg him to suspend, at all events, the execution of the man for a few days, until satisfactory inquiries could be made respecting the truth of the evidence which had; been offered against him, and that the Governor on that occasion declared, that if all the judges and proctors in Ceylon were to say that the man was innocent, he should nevertheless be executed the next day; and he was shot the next day at seven o'clock in the morning. When that statement was made to the Committee, it took them by surprise, and many of them refused to believe that such an event would have taken place in a British colony. Mr. M'Christie was asked for the authority on which he made that statement. He said his authority was the letters he had received from his constituents. He was asked to produce these letters. He said he had no objection to give the names of the writers, but the letters themselves were of a private and confidential nature, and contained a vast deal of matter which was never expected to be made public, and which was not connected with the charges against the Government of Ceylon; that the letters would not prove the truth of the statement; they would only prove that he had spoken the truth in saying that he had received such letters. The witness was ordered to withdraw, and the Committee immediately came to a resolution, proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Major Blackall), to call upon Mr. M'Christie to produce the letters in question. That Resolution was in these words:— Resolved—That Mr. M'Christie do produce to this Committee the letters upon which he founds the grievance complained of by the colony, that Lord Torrington used the expression, that 'if all the judges and proctors in Ceylon were to say the man was innocent, he should nevertheless be executed the next day. That Resolution was subsequently modified by a Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir James Hogg), to the effect that Mr. M'Christie might, if he thought proper, withdraw his evidence. Mr. M'Christie considered his veracity was in question, and therefore he produced the letters, not, however, without making a protest. He said— I now produce these two letters, written by my constituent, Mr. Elliot, confidentially to myself as agent or attorney for him, and which, with every deference and respect, I greatly complain of being obliged to do. The letters having been laid before the Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir James Hogg) immediately moved the following Resolution:— That the two letters, dated respectively April 11, 1849, and May 10, 1848, from Mr. Elliot to Mr. M'Christie, be not printed until further orders be received from the Committee. This showed that the hon. Baronet had strong doubts whether those letters ought to have been produced; but no such doubt existed in the mind of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, for at the next meeting he caused that Resolution to be rescinded, and moved the following:— That the two letters delivered in by Mr. M'Christie dated 'April 11,1849,' and 'May 12, 1849,' be inserted in the evidence taken upon Tuesday last, after Question 7,580, and that an amended copy of that day's evidence be furnished to the Members of the Committee. He had thought it necessary to enter into those details to show that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) had no very great objection, but, on the contrary, had set the example of publishing these private and confidential letters. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings, it accidentally came to the knowledge of the Committee that Colonel Braybrooke had written a private and confidential letter respecting the affairs of Ceylon to M'Christie, who was an old friend of his. No sooner did the hon. Under Secretary of the Colonies hear that than he asked for the production of that letter. Colonel Braybrooke replied that he had no copy of it. Mr. M'Christie was therefore called before the Committee, and required to produce the letter. [Mr. Hawes indicated dissent.] The hon. Gentleman does not dispute the fact? [Mr. HAWES: I do.] Very well, this very letter obtained in such a manner was afterwards forwarded by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the Commander-in-Chief, with the view of bringing Colonel Braybrooke before a court-martial. The Commander-in-Chief did not adopt that course, but satisfied himself with expressing his disapprobation that officers in Her Majesty's service should write private and confidential letters to their friends, commenting upon the public conduct of the authorities of the colony in which they might be serving. Now he (Mr. Baillie) thought he had shown that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had no great or strong objection to the production of these private letters. It was perfectly true that when the tables were turned to a certain extent upon the hon. Gentleman—when it was proposed to put in evidence the private letters of Lord Torrington—the virtuous indignation of the hon. Gentleman was aroused. Then the Committee heard, for the first time, of the great enormity they were about to commit in breaking open a private correspondence. "What," said the hon. Gentleman, "would you violate the seal of private correspondence? would you break open the private desk of a Peer to expose his private communications?" He (Mr. Baillie) had objected to the production of the letters when it was first proposed; but when he saw the course the Committee was going to adopt, he thought it was not right that a Committee of the House of Commons should exercise greater forbearance and moderation in dealing with the letters of a Peer than of a private gentleman, and therefore he had expressed his opinion that they ought to be produced. But the hon. Gentleman had no objection to break open the writing-desk of Mr. M'Christie. He must have thought there was a great difference between the writing-desk of the governor of a colony and that of a barrister of Lincoln's Inn. He (Mr. Baillie) was one of those Members of the Committee who opposed the resolution for compelling Mr. M'Christie to produce his private letters; but when he recollected the course the Committee had taken in that case, he did not think it right that a Committee of the House of Commons should exercise a greater amount of delicacy and forbearance in exposing the private letters of a Peer, than in those of a private gentleman. And now he (Mr. Baillie) came to the private letters of Lord Torrington; but he wished simply to state to the House the mode in which they were produced before the Committee. It seemed that Lord Torrington was of opinion that their Colonial Secretary, Sir James Emerson Tennent, should come before the Committee, in order to defend the acts of the Ceylon Government; and in the course of a very laboured defence which that gentleman made, not only on behalf of himself but of Lord Torrington—for he had been the chief adviser of Lord Torrington—he informed the Committee that he was authorised and instructed by Lord Torrington to make a statement, which statement seriously affected the honour and character of a gentleman of high standing in the civil service at Ceylon, who had given evidence before the Committee in the previous Session, and which evidence it appeared had been disagreeable to Lord Torrington. When the Committee heard the statement, they were unanimously of opinion that that gentleman, Mr. Wodehouse, should be allowed to come before the Committee, and give such explanation as he might think proper. In the course of Mr. Wodehouse's examination, he said he could prove that Sir Emerson Tennent's statement respecting himself was not correct, for he had letters in his possession which he had received from Lord Torrington since he had been in England, which would prove its incorrectness; and he quoted certain passages from those letters. The Committee, however, informed Mr. Wodehouse that he could not be allowed to quote passages, because the context might possibly alter the sense which they seemed to bear in an isolated form, and that he must either retract the passages he had already quoted, or produce the letters entire. Mr. Wodehouse said he had no wish to produce the letters; but, at the same time, he was compelled, in self-defence, not to retract the passages he had quoted from them. These were Mr. Wodehouse's own words:— If the Committee will refer to Question 4,598, they will find that Sir Emerson Tennent says he is authorised by Lord Torrington to state one thing, and, again, he is authorised by Lord Torrington to state another thing. I have, therefore, not only to meet the expression of his own opinion, but the direct authority of Lord Torrington in support of it, as contradicting what I said last year; therefore, as it has come to a question of comparative credibility, I can have nothing to induce me to give up anything which will support the credibility of the evidence which I gave last year. It is not within my power to do so. I am most reluctant, though not from personal considerations to myself, to produce those letters to which I have alluded here. I alluded to them in the most quiet manner possible, merely as showing that Lord Torrington was aware that at one time we were not upon those confidential terms which it had been intimated we were. I alluded to the letters in the most guarded manner, and it was not my wish to go any further, as it is not my wish to go further now; but, as it is stated here that Sir Emerson Tennent is authorised to make statements which would lead the Committee to believe that I had betrayed Lord Torrington, by saying one thing one day, and another thing another day, I cannot afford to deprive myself of the benefit of their existence. And so these letters were produced. He (Mr. Baillie) had considered it necessary to give that explanation to the House in consequence of the strong language used by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in speaking of Mr. Wodehouse. It would be for the House to decide whether a public officer of unimpeachable honour and high character was to have that honour and character blasted without allowing him the opportunity of defending himself. With respect to the course adopted by the Committee, he be- lieved it to have been a right and proper course. The Committee had at that time the advice of the late Sir Robert Peel, who stated it was not only his own opinion but that of Sir John Jervis, the late Attorney General, whom he had consulted, that the Committee could adopt no other course than that of compelling the production of those letters. He (Mr. Baillie) must apologise to the House for occupying so much of its time in making that explanation; but he felt it his duty to do so in consequence of the way in which Mr. Wodehouse had been assailed. Now, he came to the evidence laid before the Committee. The House was probably aware, from the papers already laid on the table, that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave his entire approbation to the measures adopted by the Governor of Ceylon in 1848. Hence a question arose of serious importance for the consideration of the House, because, if the acts and proceedings of the Governor of Ceylon—if the manner in which martial law was carried into effect in that colony—had received the approval of the Government—and if, by the vote the House was about to give that evening, it was furthermore to receive the sanction and approbation of that House, it followed as a matter of course that those acts and proceedings would become a precedent, to be adopted on all future occasions by Colonial Governors and British officers, who might have the misfortune to be placed under similar distressing circumstances—that was to say, who might fancy themselves called on to proclaim martial law in any British dependency. In coming to a consideration of that question, it was not his intention to enter into any discussion with respect to the advantages or disadvantages which the colony of Ceylon might have derived from a reduction of the duties on cinnamon and coffee. Those were questions which the Ceylon Committee were expressly precluded from entering into by the resolutions of the Government. Nor would he call on the House to decide questions which were mere matters of opinion; for example, he would not call on the House to decide on the nature and extent of the disturbances which took place in Ceylon in 1848, or whether they had their origin, or were caused by the indiscreet conduct of the local Governor. Those were matters of opinion, and on referring to the evidence, it would be found that on those points the most important and the most authoritative witnesses did not agree. For example, Sir Emerson Tennent informed the Committee that the rebellion was formidable in its nature. Mr. Anstruther, who for fifteen years had been Colonial Secretary at Ceylon, and was well acquainted with the character of the people, who was fully competent to give an opinion, and who was residing in Ceylon at the time of the outbreak, told the Committee it was ridiculous to call it a rebellion at all. That gentleman said it was an ordinary riot magnified into undue importance by incompetent officials, and the extraordinary rigour employed in putting it down. Then Mr. Wodehouse, who had been for twenty years in official service in Ceylon, and who was there at the time of the outbreak, although he did not express himself in the strong terms used by Mr. Anstruther, for it would not have become him so to do, as an officer of the Government, yet he came to the same conclusion, namely, that there was no necessity for proclaiming martial law. But the evidence on these questions being so conflicting, he would not ask the House to express an opinion upon them, but would call on the House to decide whether the manner in which martial law was carried into effect in that colony, could, under any circumstances, have been justified, more especially under the circumstances when martial law was proclaimed—those circumstances being that the disturbances had altogether ceased, that no body of men were in arms against the authority of Her Majesty, and that the whole country was in a state of tranquillity, when the measures to which he was about to refer were carried into effect. On those points there could be no dispute, and on those points he defied contradiction, and on these points he had founded the Resolution to which he asked the assent of the House. Now, with respect to martial law, on which very great misconception had arisen. When the Ceylon Committee first commenced their inquiry, they thought it advisable to request the attendance of Her Majesty's Judge Advocate General, in order that they might have the benefit and advantage of his great legal knowledge and experience; and in the course of the evidence which that right hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee, he stated it to be his opinion that martial law ought never to be imposed except in cases of the most extreme necessity; and that, he (Mr. Baillie) supposed, was an opinion from which no right-minded man would he inclined to differ. But the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General went on to say that martial law was no law at all, that it was the absence of all law; but with every possible deference to the great legal knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Baillie) could not concur in that interpretation, or rather in that definition, of martial law, at least without great qualification. It might be perfectly true that martial law, as they usually understood it, might not be a written law. No more was the common law of England a written law. The common law of England was governed by precedents, and so to a certain extent must martial law he governed by precedents. An officer employed in carrying out martial law would have no more right to assume that the lives and fortunes of Her Majesty's subjects might be dealt with according to his supreme will and pleasure, than a Judge in Westminster Hall had to assume that, because he was the interpreter of the common law of England, he was at liberty to bend that common law at his own will and pleasure, to the prejudice of the people. There were two modes in which trials by court-martial were to be conducted. The first was when hostile armies were in the field, when war was actually raging; then, indeed, trials took place under martial law which were very summary in their nature. Persons were sometimes tried by what was termed a drumhead court-martial, sentenced, and executed upon the spot, without any appeal or reference to superior authority. This was a species of Lynchlaw, justified only by the necessities of the case, and by the usages of war. That was one mode sanctioned by precedent. Another case was when a district of country was placed under martial law in consequence of a supposed disaffection or rebellious spirit among the people. This might only be a measure of precaution, and the ordinary tribunals might or might not be suspended according to the necessity of the case, and according to all former precedent, whether upon the Continent or in England. Prisoners, under those circumstances, had always been allowed a fair trial by court-martial under the provisions of the Mutiny Act. They had been allowed judge-advocates to assist in their defence, the courts had been properly constituted, and the sentences referred for approval to the Commander-in-Chief. There was another mode of conducting trials when a city or district was placed under martial law, as was frequently done on the Continent as a supplementary measure of security. In this case the ordinary tribunals of the country might he suspended or not, according to the necessity of the case. In 1814 the Duke of Wellington established martial law in the south of Franco; but then the ordinary tribunals of the country were not suspended, and the law was administered by the civil funtionaries as usual. In the other case, namely, when the ordinary tribunals of the country were suspended, the precautions to which he had adverted—the appointment of a judge-advocate and the transmission of the proceedings of courts-martial to the Commander-in-Chief for perusal, were always adopted. Such was the mode in which martial law was administered in Ceylon in the years 1817 and 1818, during the rebellion, when Sir Robert Brownrigg was Governor. On that occasion he issued a warrant to certain officers of rank, commanding them to hold courts-martial in their district. These warrants were accompanied by a letter of instructions, detailing the mode in which these trials were to take place, in order to ensure a fair trial to the accused. He (Mr. Baillie) did not mean to say that, upon that occasion, some irregularities were not committed; but if they were it was not the fault of Sir Robert Brownrigg, but it was in consequence of the misconduct of individual officers, who acted in direct violation of the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. But in the present case, what they complained of was, that all the irregularities which occurred were occasioned by the orders of the Ceylon Government, and were committed under the immediate sanction of the Governor. For example, after these disturbances had been suppressed, and when the country was quite quiet, the Supreme Court was appointed to hold a special session in the town of Kandy, for the trial of persons engaged in these disturbances. Simultaneously with the appointment of the Supreme Court to hold these sessions, courts-martial were also appointed to assemble in the towns of Kandy, Kornegalle, and Matelle, for the trial of persons, many of whom were accused of high treason. Now, these courts-martial in Matelle were generally composed of three subaltern officers. These young officers commenced their proceedings with, he was hound to believe it, an anxious desire faithfully to discharge the terrible duty that was imposed upon them, and to adhere to those rules and regulations usually adopted for the security of a fair trial and the administration of impartial justice. Unfortunately they were not allowed to continue in the course they had adopted. As he said before, they commenced their proceedings by the appointment of judge-advocates to assist the prisoners, but they soon received orders from their commanding officer Colonel Drought, to discontinue that practice; he informed them that no judge-advocates were necessary, and that it was not necessary to take down the evidence in detail. All that it was necessary for them to do was to be convinced of the guilt of the prisoner, and if so, to carry the sentence into execution without reference to him or any other person. After the receipt of these orders the practices of the courts were altered accordingly. The officers again commenced their proceedings by the trial of five persons for plunder; two of them they sentenced to seven years' and two to fifteen years' transportation. But for this they soon received a reprimand, with an intimation that they had no business to pass sentences so lenient. They were told that men who were guilty of plunder were rebels, and ought to suffer death. Now it was worthy of remark that no executions had taken place at Matelle previous to these orders; but that he might not be supposed to exaggerate, he would read to the House Colonel Drought's letter. It was addressed to Captain Watson. It was dated Kandy, August 8, 1848:— Sir—You will order a court-martial to assemble for the trial of prisoners captured since the date of the proclamation placing Matelle under martial law. You will appoint your senior officer president, with two officers as members; you will confirm the proceedings, and have the sentence carried into effect on the spot, without a reference to me or any other person. You will not bring to trial any individual whom you are not certain of convicting; you can refer to me any case that you have a doubt about. Your power is unlimited; at the same time, it will be as well to adhere to the articles of war as far as practicable; and you will appoint one of your officers to act as judge-advocate, or any other qualified person; and you will appoint a person from the police to act as provost marshal. After disposal of each culprit tried, you will forward me the proceedings.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, T. A. DROUGHT, Lieutenant-Colonel Commanding. Captain A. Watson, as Officer commanding the troops, Matelle. These instructions were important, because they showed that in the first instance judge-advocates were considered necessary and were appointed, and the officers were instructed to adhere as nearly as possible to the articles of war. For his part he could never explain the reason why these orders were rescinded. Now the next letter was also addressed to Captain Watson. It placed all those concerned in these disturbances in the double aspect of rebels and felons:— August 10, 1848. My dear Watson—I wish you to explain to your officers at Matelle that I am surprised they did not sentence the four prisoners to be executed. A plunderer in these times is a miscreant in the double capacity of a rebel and a felon, who would, if he could, first take your life, and then your property. Remind them that all engaged as those were are rebels, and that all rebels should suffer death. Sir A. Oliphant has given it as his opinion that we are dealing delicately with the rascals, and that a great deal too much time is taken in detailing evidence. The court have, under the present law, merely to satisfy themselves as to the parties being guilty or otherwise, find and decide accordingly.—Yours, T. A. DROUGHT. I said almost all this in a note I wrote before receiving the courts-martial. "T. A. DROUGHT. The note he refers to is this:— August 16, 1848. My dear Watson—You are getting on swimmingly. Your deputy judge-advocate will of course receive the usual allowance for every day the court sits. Impress on the court that there is no necessity for taking down the evidence in detail, so that they are satisfied with the guilt or innocence of the individual; that is sufficient for them to find and sentence., This is the law and mode; have you no case for example on the spot?—Yours, "T. A. DROUGHT. August 8, 1848. My dear Watson—It not being necessary to have judge-advocates, you may discontinue the practice.—Yours, "T. A. DROUGHT, Lieutenant-Colonel Commanding. The statement attributed to the Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Oliphant, was entirely unfounded. Sir Anthony Oliphant stated before the Committee that he had never made use of any such language, and that it was these proceedings that called forth the indignant remonstrance of the Chief Justice. When he was before the Committee he was asked whether he had not remonstrated both publicly and privately, and he answered that he had done so. He was desired to state the terms of his private remonstrance; but that he declined to do, but he made use of these words before the Committee:— I have served Her Majesty for twenty years, and I have eaten the bread of the British nation for that time, and I felt the glory of the one would be tarnished, and the character for humanity of the other was being compromised, and I could not stand by any longer quietly. Such was the statement of the Chief Justice. And as a proof that, during the whole time that these proceedings were going on, the country was perfectly tranquil, he might mention that small detachments, consisting of ten, fifteen, or twenty men, were sent all over the country, from village to village, confiscating the property of those alleged to have been concerned in the insurrection, seizing the corn, crops, cattle, and household utensils of all those who were absent from their homes—for absence was taken as a proof of complicity in the rebellion; and in no one single instance was the slightest resistance offered or violence used against the troops so employed—not one single casualty occurred during the whole of the two months. Lieutenant Henderson, who was examined before the Committee, was one of the officers employed in this manner, and sent into a part of the country which was deemed the most dangerous. He was asked by Mr. Hawes [Q. 6,030]— When you were stationed in that part of the Matelle district, in which you have stated you were altogether for about six weeks, was the country perfectly quiet?—Perfectly quiet. The natives, you have stated, were perfectly friendly?—Quite so. Now, if the district was quiet, and the natives remained friendly, under the circumstances he had detailed, of confiscations and court-martials, where the accused were not allowed the benefit of a judge-advocate, he thought that it was strong evidence of the mild and inoffensive character of the people. Although these disturbances had ceased for two mouths, still the courts-martial continued. He had evidence, in Lord Torrington's own despatches, that such was the case. In his proclamation of the 18th of August, he called them the "recent disturbances," and in another place he called them "the late disturbances;" but, notwithstanding, the courts-martial continued. Lord Torrington, in a speech which he presumed he might refer to, because it had been published by authority, had called Colonel Braybrooke as a witness to justify the necessity for the proclamation of martial law. He was quite ready to admit the value of Colonel Braybrooke's evidence—he was an old and experienced officer, he had seen forty years' service, and there was no officer to whom he would pay greater deference. He was quite ready also to give Lord Torrington the full benefit of Colonel Braybrooke's opinion. But it should be remembered that that was his opinion from the information which the Government had received at the time, which he had no opportunity of testing; but in a week after, when further information was received, he was then convinced that the whole affair had been grossly exaggerated. Lord Torrington, having availed himself of Colonel Braybrooke's evidence, could not complain if he (Mr. Baillie) should appeal to the same authority as to the manner in which martial law was carried into operation. Colonel Braybrooke, in a letter which, thanks to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, was produced to the Committee, and was in evidence, although it was a private letter, written to Mr. M'Christie [Appendix, pp. 554–555], in speaking of these courts-martial he thus expressed himself:— There can be no doubt that in most cases the courts-martial were not properly constituted, those in Matelle especially, where, I believe, a subaltern officer presided, with sometimes only two other subalterns as members, tried, and sentenced men to death, and that Captain Watson approved, and, by orders from Colonel Drought, carried those sentences into effect. For all this there was not the slightest necessity; all disturbances had ceased, and, after one or two examples had been made of headmen convicted upon the clearest testimony, nothing more was needed. Nothing, in my opinion, can justify the more recent of these courts-martial held at Matelle. The prisoners, if it were thought necessary to try them, might and ought to have been sent to Kandy, a distance of only 16 miles, where a general court-martial, composed of a field-officer as president, and the usual number of officers (captains and subalterns), with a judge-advocate, could have tried them with all becoming formality, and where the interpretation could have been relied on, and the prisoners could have obtained all necessary assistance. No right-minded man can view without horror the whole of the proceedings in Matelle. In Kornegalle, by Colonel Drought's orders, Capt. Bird, who sat as a member of a court-martial, actually approved and confirmed the proceedings, and caused a man to be shot within half an hour after the trial. In 1818, when nearly the whole of the interior was in open and violent rebellion, General Brownrigg entrusted the power of confirming general courts-martial to one officer only, although there were nine or ten lieutenant-colonels employed in the field; and in delegating that tremendous power to that officer, in whom he had the utmost confidence, he gave him the strongest injunctions to exercise it with the utmost forbearance, circumspection, and humanity. Prisoners and evidences were generally brought from distances to be tried in Kandy, by a full court-martial, presided over by an old field-officer, and with able judge-advocates to conduct the proceedings. General Brownrigg himself confirmed the proceedings, and ordered the sentences to be carried into effect. I cannot at this moment guess the number of men so tried; but I doubt if during the whole of that arduous struggle, they exceeded the number shot on the recent occasion; and in no case were any executed who had not taken a very prominent part in the rebellion. That was the opinion of the officer whom Lord Torrington quoted to justify the proclamation of martial law. In the same speech Lord Torrington went on to say that all the English in the colony were in favour of the measures of the Government. That statement greatly surprised him. He had a newspaper published in Ceylon on the 23rd of September, containing the strongest expressions of horror at the scenes which were being enacted—he had forgotten to bring it down to the House with him, but he would take another occasion to read it to the House. [Mr. HAWES: Was it not an opposition newspaper?] No; it was Lord Torrington's own organ, the Examiner newspaper. The next point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, was a misrepresentation made by the Colonial Office, amounting nearly to a falsification of documents laid upon the table of the House, and calculated to mislead Members. That was a very serious charge, and he was there to prove it. From what he had stated, it would seem that one of the chief charges they had to make against the Governor of Ceylon was, that a number of men were executed by courts-martial improperly constituted, and without the assistance of judge-advocates. In order to meet the charge, the Government published a list of courts-martial held in Ceylon. In that return, which would be found at page 270 in the Appendix, Mr. Charles Stewart was represented to have acted in the capacity of judge-advocate upon fourteen courts-martial, and his name was deliberately inserted fourteen times. He denounced that as a false return, and that might be proved from Mr. Charles Stewart's own letter, which he was requested to write in defence of Lord Torrington's policy. The letter would be found in page 313 of the Appendix. In that letter it -was stated twice over, that he only acted on "the first four trials at Kandy, and that he was not either at Kornegalle or Matelle during the sittings of the courts-martial at either of those places." Now, this could be no unintentional mistake. The name was inserted fourteen times. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies knew that Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, informed the Commit- tee that his deputy, Mr. Charles Stewart, had attended the first four trials at Kandy, but had desisted from attending any more in consequence of his advice. In Question 1,435 of the evidence Mr. Selby was asked— Did you disapprove of his acting as judge-advocate on these courts-martial? Answer—I did; I advised him not to act as judge-advocate as soon as I heard of it. Q. Did he, after that, cease to act on courts-martial?—A. Yes; he acted on only four courts-martial. Now, what did the House think of a great public department which resorted to such practices as these? Were they to suppose the subordinate clerks in the office made these insertions without authority? But what were they to say of the chief officer of a department so conducted? This at least—that he was the last man in England who had a right to accuse the Members of the Ceylon Committee of disgraceful conduct in their efforts to investigate these transactions. He would now proceed to state other acts of the Ceylon Government, carried on under the supposed omnipotent power conferred on the Governor by the proclamation of martial law. The Governor seemed to have supposed that martial law not only placed the lives of the inhabitants at his mercy and disposal, but their land and property also; and, acting upon this extraordinary delusion, proclamations were issued, ordering the confiscation and forfeiture of the land and property of all those who were absent from their homes, and who could not give a satisfactory reason for their absence. This cruelty, as might he supposed, led to a widespread system of robbery and confiscation, for vast numbers of the inhabitants had forsaken their houses and their fields, and had fled into the jungle, out of fear of the troops. Now the first mention made of confiscation as a punishment for this popular outbreak was contained in a letter from Mr. Buller, agent for the Central Province, to the Colonial Secretary, Sir Emerson Tennent: it was dated 31st of July, 1848, and it would he found in page 182 of the Appendix. He said— I have called upon several Rata Mahatmeyas to report the names of all the headmen who are absent from their villages without being able to show satisfactory cause for it, and have intimated to them that they will be dismissed, and their property confiscated. On the 5th of August a much more extensive measure of confiscation was suggested to Sir Emerson Tennent by Mr. Simms, the magistrate of Madeweletene:— There can be no doubt," said this gentleman, "that in abandoning their homes and joining in open rebellion their property has become forfeited to Government, and I think it worthy of consideration whether it would not be expedient to make over their lands and houses to Malabars, who would gladly settle in the district upon any terms Government might desire. This may appear a rash suggestion, but it is absolutely necessary that a heavy punishment of some sort should be inflicted upon all the rebellious. It is true that a great number of those have been already killed, and many more will doubtless suffer the extreme penalty of the law; still the great mass of them cannot be so punished, and the suffering of a few will have little effect upon the others, if they are not all made to suffer individually in their own property. Rash as this suggestion appeared, even to the advocates of a measure so harsh and cruel, the suggestion was not lost on Sir Emerson Tennent. That which Mr. Simms threw out only as a suggestion soon assumed the form of a recommendation of Sir Emerson Tennent to Lord Torrington, couched in the following heartless words. The document will be found in page 200 of the Report:— The opportunity that now presents of locating a race of Malabars in these important positions, viz., the seven Korles and Matelle, on the lands forfeited by the rebels, is one which I earnestly trust your Excellency will not allow to pass unimproved. He had shown the House what were the opinions and sentiments of the chief officers of the Ceylon Government, and he would now show them what were the measures they devised to carry them into operation. Their first measure was a proclamation issued by Colonel Drought, on the 8th August, 1848:— It is hereby proclaimed that in all the Kandian districts now under martial law, I have ordered the seizure and attachment of the lands, houses, and other property, of all persons of whatever rank or description, who have joined in the wicked rebellion against the authority of Her Majesty the Queen; and I hereby call upon all loyal subjects to assist the officers appointed by me to carry my orders into effect. And I hereby further command all loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen to keep themselves apart from those concerned in this rebellion; for whosoever shall be found to have aided the rebels, or supplied them with food or other provisions, is liable to condign punishment, and will forfeit his lands and property, and will be treated in all other respects as a rebel. And I also hereby declare to all innocent and loyal subjects who may chance to be absent from their homes, but who have not been engaged in any act of treason or robbery during the present insurrection, and can account for their absence, that they are not by this my proclamation prohibited from returning to resume possession of their property, and reside in peace in their houses. On the 18th of August, another proclamation was issued by the Governor himself. It was drawn up by Sir Emerson Tennent, the gentleman who had recommended the importation of the Malabars. It said— The lands and property of all persons who shall, after the 18th day of August, 1848, be found to have been absent from their ordinary places of residence during the last twenty days, without giving a satisfactory account of themselves, will be declared forfeited and confiscated to the Crown. Given at the Pavilion at Kandy, August 18, 1848, by order of the Government. (Signed) "JAMES EMERSON TENNENT. Now, it would be observed that these proclamations had a retrospective effect—all persons who had been absent twenty days previous to its being issued were affected by it. He knew it had been attempted to prove before the Committee that only sequestration was intended. They could hardly think that Sir Emerson Tennent, the man who recommended the confiscation and the colonisation with Malabars, intended only sequestration. But in order that there might be no doubt upon the matter, he would proceed to state to the House the manner in which the proclamation was acted upon. The first case he would bring before the House was the important one of Dullawah Maha Nilleme, one of the richest and most influential of the native chiefs in Ceylon. It was this man whom Captain Watson, in his proclamation, referred to when he threatened with death all those who did not deliver up his property. He was the last of those chieftains alive who had surrendered the Kandyan kingdom into the hands of the British Government. He was a very aged man, and the lay head of the Buddhist religion in Ceylon, and he had been mainly instrumental in suppressing the rebellion of 1817 and 1818, and had always been considered as a true friend of the British Government. As soon as these disturbances commenced, Mr. Buller, the Governor of the Central Province, requested Dullawah Maha Nilleme to go into the disturbed districts and use his influence to suppress it. But no sooner was he arrived there than he was seized and imprisoned by Captain Watson, and sent to Kandy. There was not a particle of evidence to show that he was connected with the outbreak, notwithstanding which, a party of soldiers were sent to his house. The floors were torn up in search of jewellery, and every depredation was committed. As an instance of the plunder and robbery effected on his premises, he might add that one servant employed by the soldiers was detected with rupees to the value of 75l. concealed upon his person, part of the spoil which he had carried off. The property of the unfortunate man was sold by public auction, and all this was done by virtue of the proclamation of the 8th of August. The corn and cattle from the estate were also carried off, and all this was done while the chief was a prisoner in the hands of the Government. It was true he was absent from his house, for he was waiting to take his trial. Now, he could perfectly well understand, if a man was accused of high treason, if he escaped from justice, and refused to stand his trial, that a Government might be justified in seizing and taking possession of his property; but what he could not understand was, that the property of a man should be confiscated who was himself in the hands of Government and waiting to take his trial. The sequel of the story remained to be told. When the case came to be investigated by the law officers of the Crown, they found that there was not the slightest reason for putting him on his trial; and such portion of his property as had been sold by public auction was returned to him with a deduction of 12 per cent for the Government expenses, which ho, however, indignantly declined. The poor old man died a few weeks after of a broken heart. Such was the fate of the last of those men who had signed over the Kandyan kingdom to the British Government. The next case he would bring under the notice of the House was one of a precisely similar nature—the case of Gollahalla Rata Mahatmeya, also one of the richest chiefs. This man was also seized and thrown into prison, his house was entered by soldiers under Captain Watson's orders, and plundered of everything it contained. He states his losses to have been of the value of 7,000l. He (Mr. Baillie) would not answer for the amount, but that was the statement of the man himself. His corn was carried off; his cattle were driven away—they were driven off to Captain Watson's head quarters; at his door they were sold the next morning, and were purchased by Captain Watson, who it seemed had an estate in the neighbourhood in want of stock at the time, and who possibly thought it a very good opportunity of supplying himself. When the case of this man came to be investigated, the Queen's Advocate found there was no ground for putting him in prison, and he was liberated. The same result followed; he was tendered the proceeds of that portion of his property which had been sold by public auction. He (Mr. Baillie) might quote volumes to the House, for there were volumes published of the names of individuals plundered in a similar manner, but mostly peasants, and not men of the same importance. Hundreds were plundered in a similar manner, and the compensation was quite ridiculous as compared with the losses sustained. Where the loss was estimated at 7l. or 8l., 5s. were offered as compensation. He (Mr. Baillie) could not, however, entirely pass over the plunder of the temples. Not satisfied with the plunder of private houses, parties of soldiers entered the temples and carried off the images of the gods, the ornaments of the temples, and the garments of the priests. Nothing appeared either too great or too small to satisfy the Ceylon Government. Everything was carried off and sold by auction. When the great Dambool temple was plundered by the soldiery, the priests of that temple were prisoners in the hands of the Government. In these cases, too, the property taken was sold off; that, however, was of but little consequence, as the property was public property, and not the property of the priests. However, it should also be stated that these priests were afterwards acquitted. He had now stated to the House as briefly as he could the mode in which the trials under martial law were conducted, and the manner in which the property was confiscated. He would next proceed to state to the House the way in which human life was disposed of. The case which he should now bring under the notice of the House was one which had often been referred to—namely, the refusal of Lord Torrington to listen to the advice of the law officer of the Crown, who went to solicit him to suspend, for a short time, the execution of a prisoner under sentence of death until it could be ascertained whether he was really guilty of the crime with which he was charged, the Queen's Advocate having reason, from information which he had received, to believe that he was innocent. He (Mr. Baillie) did not wish to enter into the exact words used by Lord Torrington on that occasion. It seemed to him the exact words were of very little consequence. The fact that the Queen's Advocate's interference under the circumstances stated was unsuccessful, and the man was executed, was not denied. The Queen's Advocate afterwards, at Lord Torrington's request, drew up a statement of what took place at the interview. He sent that statement to Lord Torrington, and that statement was as follows:— Colombo, September 22, 1849.—My dear Lord: When yesterday you requested me to read the paper which you informed me you had drawn up and submitted to Colonel Drought, relative to the conversation I had the honour to hold with your Lordship respecting the priest's execution, on the day he was tried, and if I found it correct to sign it before you transmitted it to England, I stated to your Lordship, in returning the paper unread, that I thought it would be more satisfactory if, before perusing what you had written, I put down and delivered to your Lordship a statement in writing of my own recollections of that interview, the chief incidents of which wore quite fresh in my memory. To this proposition your Lordship kindly assented, and I lose no time in giving, according to my promise, a relation of what passed on that occasion. About four o'clock on the day of the priest's trial, in consequence of information given to me by Mr. Smith, a proctor at Kandy, I went to the Pavilion; on my arrival I found Colonel Drought on the verandah, and mentioned to him what I had heard from Mr. Smith; on which he stated in substance that he had great confidence in the officers who composed the court-martial, especially Major Lushington, the president, who had been in India for several years, and knew the natives; and that he must be guided by the opinion of the Court. It was then announced to me that the Governor was disengaged, and I was shown into the room. I found your Excellency standing up between the table and the door at which I entered. My recollection is that Mr. Bernard was in the room leaning over the table and reading some papers when I entered, and that when I left it he was gone, but at what particular part of my interview with your Lordship he went away I cannot remember, as I did not take notice. Your Lordship did not sit down during the interview, which lasted but a few minutes: and I also, of course, remained standing. I informed your Lordship that I had heard a priest was to be shot next morning; that Mr. Smith, the proctor, had been with me, and had informed me that he had attended the court-martial, and was satisfied, for reasons he had not mentioned to me, that the priest was innocent, and the evidence against him false; and that Mr. Dunville, the proctor, and Mr. Jayetillike, the interpreter of the court, who had also been present at the trial, agreed with him (Mr. Smith) that it was a conspiracy against the priest; and that under these circumstances I thought myself bound to come at once to your Lordship, with a view of delaying the execution until further inquiry had been made. Tour Lordship became pale whilst I was speaking, and, when I concluded, struck your hand on your thigh, exclaiming, 'By God, if all the proctors in the place said the man was innocent, he should die to-morrow morning;' or words to that effect. The only words I have any doubt about are 'place' and 'die.' It is possible, that your Lordship used the word 'island' instead of 'place,' and the words 'be shot,' instead of 'die.' Thereupon I said, 'That is a matter for your Lordship's consideration. I thought it my duty to let you know what I had heard.' Your Lordship continued, by remarking that courts-martial were the fairest courts in the world; that you would rather be tried by the gentlemen who had tried the priest than by all the Judges of the Supreme Court; and besides, that the priest had confessed. I said that I knew nothing personally of the case, and that I did not at all question the wish of the members of the court-martial to do what was just and right, but that I doubted whether they knew enough of the native character to be good judges in such cases. At or just about this time Colonel Drought came into the room, and the impression on my mind is, that your Excellency made a remark to the same purport to him, as to the goodness of courts-martial. Shortly after I took my leave, and went straight from the Pavilion to the Colonial Secretary's bungalow, where I found Sir Anthony and Lady Oliphant, who had just arrived at Kandy. To them, for reasons with which I acquainted your Lordship yesterday, I related what had passed, and dissuaded Sir Anthony from speaking to your Lordship on the subject of the priest's execution. Such, my Lord, is my recollection of a very painful scene; and I can now only regret that my interference, which your Lordship probably considered uncalled for, should have been the occasion of those hasty expressions which, in an unguarded moment, your Lordship let fall.—Believe me, &c. (Signed) "H. C. SELBY. It was obvious that the two parties and the interpreters of the court hero referred to were probably the only persons at the trial who understood the native language. The officers who conducted the trial could not understand the language, and could therefore only receive their impressions through the interpreter of the court, who believed in his innocence. Such was the statement sent to Lord Torrington. What was his answer? Lid he deny the statement of Mr. Selby? The House would judge. The answer was as follows:— Queen's House, September 23, 1849. My dear Selby: I enclose my paper (that is, the paper which I had returned previously unread). Colonel Drought was present the whole time. I think the remark about my turning pale an unnecessary one. I shall be happy to talk to you on the subject when we meet.—Yours, "T. Such was the answer given by Lord Torrington to that statement in the year 1849. A year afterwards, in 1850, in a despatch to Earl Grey, he said the statement was untrue. But, as he (Mr. Baillie) had observed before, the exact words used on the occasion appeared to him to be of little importance. What was of importance was this, that a human being was hurried to execution without inquiry, and contrary to the remonstrances of the chief law officers of the Crown, when those who were most competent to form an opinion believed he was innocent. He would not trust himself to make any comment on that transaction. He would only ask the hon. Under Secretary of the Colonies, if that was one of the public acts of the Ceylon Govern- ment which he was prepared to defend and justify? If it was, let him say so. It was right the House of Commons should know it. It was right the people of England should know it. It was right Governors of distant colonies should know what were the acts by which they would he entitled to the cordial approbation of the Colonial Office, and the thanks of the Crown. Already they found that these transactions had not been without their fruits. Sir Henry Ward, in the Ionian Islands, seemed to have followed very closely on the footsteps of Lord Torrington. He, too, had received the "cordial approbation" of the Colonial Office; but such acts, though they might receive the approval of the Minister, would not confer honour or credit on the Government or the people of this country. It was right that the people of England, who were ever ready to condemn deeds of cruelty practised by foregn Governments on their rebellious subjects, should learn to appreciate the severities practised in their dependencies by their own Government. It was right the people of England should learn to appreciate those sufferings which British subjects had sometimes to endure when, far removed from the paternal eye of the Sovereign, they were handed over to the caprices of a Colonial Governor, and to the tender mercies of a Secretary of State. It was right the people of England should learn to appreciate these truths, however unpalatable they might be. He (Mr. Baillie) would once more refer to the speech of Lord Torrington. In that speech the noble Lord laid great stress upon the addresses which had been sent to him from Europeans as well as from natives. To these addresses he (Mr. Baillie) confessed he did not think any great weight could be attached. That some of the few Europeans who resided in Ceylon might have signed them, he did not deny; but with regard to the native addresses, he did not attach much importance to that statement, and he was supported in that opinion by very great authority—by no less an authority than that of Mr. Macaulay, A precisely similar course, and a similar mode of defence, was adopted with respect to the trial of Warren Hastings, and Mr. Macaulay said— It is to be added, that the numerous addresses to the late Governor General which his friends in Bengal obtained from the natives, and transmitted to England, made a considerable impression. To these addresses we attach little or no importance. That Hastings was beloved by the people whom he governed is true; but the eulogies of pundits, zemindars, Mahomniedan doctors, do not prove it to be true. For an English collector or judge would have found it easy to induce any native who could write to sign a panegyric on the most odious ruler that ever was in India. It was said that at Benares, the very place at which the acts set forth in the first article of impeachment had been committed, the natives had erected a temple to Hastings; and this story excited a strong sensation in England. Burke's observations oh the apotheosis were admirable. He saw no reason for astonishment, he said, in the incident which had been represented as so striking. He knew something of the mythology of the Brahmins. He knew that as they worshipped some gods from love, so they worshipped others from fear. He knew that they erected shrines, not only to the benignant deities of light and plenty, but also to the fiends who preside over small-pox and murder; nor did he at all dispute the claim of Mr. Hastings to be admitted into such a Pantheon. He (Mr. Baillie) did not wish to use the strong language which Mr. Burke made use of, hut this he would say, that he entirely agreed with Mr. Macaulay that no weight or importance ought to be attached to any such addresses. And now he came to the despatches of Earl Grey, giving a general approval of all these transactions. On the 24th of October, 1848, Earl Grey wrote to Lord Torrington a despatch, of which the following was an extract:— I have, however, great satisfaction in conveying to your Lordship Her Majesty's approbation of the measures taken to restore tranquillity and maintain the authority of the Government, and of the decision, promptitude, and judgment with which you acted in putting down the attempts which were made to disturb the peace of the island, and to set up an usurped and illegal power. This was in answer to several despatches from Lord Torrington to Earl Grey, containing the report of the successful plan of the superintendent of police in Kandy, which was, "to keep quiet until an outbreak occurred, which should enable the authorities to bring the disaffected to justice;" also of the slaughter at Waniopola, of the proclamation of martial law, and the subsequent executions. On the same 24th of October there was another despatch from Earl Grey to Lord Torrington, in which Earl Grey said— In more than one of the other despatches which will reach you by the present opportunity, I have expressed the satisfaction which I have felt at your prompt and successful efforts to put an immediate end to the insurrection which, unhappily, has recently occurred in Ceylon. But considering that so much objection has been taken on this occasion to your financial measures, and that memorials have been transmitted to me ascribing the outbreak to the just discontent those measures are said to have created, I consider it due to you to record more fully than I have yet done some of the general grounds on which I approve of those measures, and on which they will appear to mo to be deserving of approval. The despatch went on to explain the reasons which had induced Earl Grey to approve of those ordinances which had been altered and modified before the despatch of Earl Grey was received. It was impossible for the House to understand the difficulties which his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) and himself had had to contend with in elucidating; and bringing; to light those transactions, opposed as they had been, at every step, by the weight and influence of Government. True it was that on several not unimportant occasions they had received the sympathy and support of the House; and without that support all their efforts would have been fruitless. The result of their labours was now before the House, and it would be for them to decide whether the Ministers of the Crown were justified in giving their approbation to these transactions, and whether, furthermore, by the vote this evening they were to receive the sanction of the House, and thereby become precedents to be adopted on all future occasions by those British officers called to carry out public affairs in the colonies of England. He was well aware of his inability to do justice to this great question. He was well aware how feeble his efforts were, in bringing this question clearly and fairly before the House; but if he had failed, at least he had the conscientious reflection of knowing, that in spite of much obloquy, he had not shrunk from the performance of that duty which had been entrusted to him by the House. It only remained for him to add, that he trusted the House would adopt a course calculated to maintain the honour of the Crown, and at the same time to maintain that character for justice and humanity which had for so long a time been eminently the character of all the acts and proceedings of the British Legislature.

Motion made, and Question put— That this House, having taken into its consideration the Evidence adduced before the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of Ceylon, is of opinion, that the punishment inflicted during the late disturbances in that Island were excessive and uncalled for.

MR. SERJEANT MURPHY

trusted the House would make allowance for him while they listened to the reasons which induced him to rise at so early a stage of these proceedings. It so happened that previous to the departure of Lord Torrington for Ceylon he was honoured with his intimacy. Whilst the noble Lord was conducting the Government of Ceylon, he (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) heard grave animadversions on his Lordship's conduct, which, as an old friend, he felt deeply, and therefore he was resolved at the earliest period, as soon as the investigations before the Committee of the House enabled him to arrive at a proper conclusion, to see on what foundation these accusations rested. He endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to master the details, and satisfied himself that in many cases accusations were made which on reference to that evidence could not be sustained. Having ascertained that, without any previous communication with the noble Lord, he felt it his duty to communicate what he did feel, and to tell him that he (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) thought him ill-used as regarded those accusations. The noble Lord then asked him whether he had any objection to make that statement to the House. He replied, that he had no objection—that he felt it his duty to make a statement of that of which investigation, made closely and critically, had satisfied him. Having given this answer to the noble Lord, he felt it his duty to make a closer examination, which satisfied him that all which his Lordship could require was, that the investigation should be perfectly searching, and then it would be established that all that the noble Lord had done in his government had been done properly, and that his Lordship had been actuated throughout by the best motives. With those views and opinions he was prepared to state his ideas, thus early, to the House. And, first of all, he would observe, that he was not instructed on behalf of Lord Torrington to complain of the course taken by the hon. Mover. Lord Torrington did not tell him to impute any improper motives to those who might choose to impugn his conduct. Lord Torrington believed that every person who had entered into this investigation had done so from a sense of public duty, and of public duty alone. But whilst he made that concession, he asked from them, on the other side, as a concession, that they would weigh, calmly and dispassionately, the evidence on which the matter rested—that they would recollect that they were engaged in a purely judicial inquiry—that they would not he swayed by the influences of party supporting or assailing a Government—and that they would not, through the side of a Government which they might wish to be stable or unstable, sect to inflict on him a wound; and, in the language of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, in speaking on his Motion for a Committee in 1849, to fix upon him the stigma of a capital felony and judicial murder. [3 Hansard, cvii. 1336.] That he required, and that he had a right in justice and fairness to require at their hands. He (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) did think that when the hon. Mover had been the Chairman of the Committee which entered into the whole inquiry—when that inquiry embraced not merely the facts in the short period included in the present charges, from the 29th of July to the 10th of October, but comprehended the whole proceedings of Lord Torrington during the time he administered the government of Ceylon—that at least in fairness to the noble Lord the hon. Gentleman should Lave told the House the points in his Lordship's administration which could not admit of any doubt or cavil, as to their having been eminently successful. He (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) thought the circumstances under which the noble Lord approached the government of that colony in the first instance, the difficulties he had had to encounter when he did approach it, and the successful result of his financial policy, would have been mooted by the hon. Member on the present occasion. He believed that when a Governor to whom had been intrusted by Her Majesty the government of an important dependency had administered that government in a manner to present, at the determination of his governorship, a state of unusual prosperity, it ought not to be concealed when accusations were launched at a particular state of facts in his administration. But the hon. Mover had selected one particular point in that government for animadversion—a point likely to address itself to the sympathies and feelings of every humane individual—a case which concerned the shedding of blood—and had not given the House the advantage of knowing the character of the whole administration. Let the House consider the circumstances under which his Lordship undertook the government; Lord Torrington undertook the government of Ceylon in the month of May, 1847; and without troubling the House with minute details as to the state of the colony, it would be sufficient to say that he found a considerable excess of expenditure over revenue, amounting to nearly 80,000l.; and when the accounts were made up to the end of the last year, at the close of his administration, there was a surplus of 25,000l. When matters of blame were referred to, surely those matters which entitled the person accused to praise, ought also to be stated. He would now more especially address himself to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Proposer of the present Motion. The hon. Mover referred, among other testimonies, to the testimony of Mr. Wodehouse. Mr. Wodehouse was a member of Lord Torrington's Council. Mr. Wodehouse was one who was absent on the occasion when the first proclamation of martial law took place; but Mr. Wodehouse, though absent on that occasion, was present on a subsequent occasion, when the whole proceedings were submitted to the Executive Council, of which he was a member. Mr. Wodehouse did confirm the whole of those proceedings: Mr. Wodehouse did express that he was perfectly satisfied with the reasons which had induced the noble Lord to proclaim martial law, and he did sanction the proceedings by his signature on that occasion. It was very strange—considering that after that sanction, Mr. Wodehouse, on the 4th of October (after the whole proceedings had been made matter of crimination on Lord Torrington) had been one of the persons present at the Council, and one who actually signed a vote of thanks to Lord Torrington, acknowledging that by the vigour of his proceedings he had maintained the integrity of the colony—it was a very extraordinary thing, if Mr. Wodehouse was sincere, that the hon. Mover should have appealed to his testimony as of a person who disapproved of the continuance of courts-martial. It was said, that after the 7th of August the disturbances ceased, and there was perfect tranquillity throughout the country. He should like to know how that was proved. It was proved, indeed, in the evidence, by the statement of Mr. Selby, who performed the part of Queen's Advocate in the colony, was one of the Executive Council, was one of the parties consulted in the first instance, and concurred in and drew up the first proclamation of martial law at Matelle, on the 29th of July; and Mr. Selby and himself drew up the proclamation afterwards sent to Kornegalle on the 31st of July; only three members were present at that Council, but six members concurred in that proclamation. It was immediately despatched, and it was said that tranquillity was as immediately restored. But what was the evidence of that fact? Was Mr. Selby the person most calculated to form an accurate estimation of the state of the island at that time? He would like to know if Mr. Selby had any communication with the agents in the several districts, with the General commanding the forces, and what were the accounts they gave him? He would like to know whether Mr. Selby received any communication from Colonel Drought, Mr. Staples, Mr. Gibson, or Mr. Buller? When examined in the Committee, and pressed upon these points, and questioned as to his reasons for concluding that there was a necessity that martial law should he put an end to, it appeared to be merely his surmise founded on his observation of what was passing around him. At this time Mr. Selby was located at Colombo. True, he went up afterwards to Kandy, but having gone for the purpose of conducting the trials, it was not likely he would find any disturbances; and the reason none took place was, that the Governor General had had the good sense to continue martial law. But if Mr. Selby was sceptical of the rebellion, and, as was stated by one of the witnesses, viewed it as a most ridiculous riot, they had the version of two persons the most competent to form a judgment. While Mr. Anstruther and Lieutenant Colonel Brayhrooke gave one version of the state of things in Ceylon at that time, they had another version from persons bettor able to judge. Colonel Drought had been tho commandant of Kandy for two years; he was an officer belonging to the 15th Regiment, and had received the marked approbation of those under whom he had served. Colonel Brayhrooke was colonel of the Ceylon Rifles, and though he had been long in the service, he was a gentleman in whose military abilities neither General Smelt nor Lord Torrington very much confided—it did so happen that he had administered for a long time the clerkship in the commissariat department, and had fallen into a sort of desuetude of military service. When part of the contingent force under his command was ordered to he sent up to Kandy, he presented himself to General Smelt, and asked to be appointed commandant of Kandy. It would have been an exceedingly convenient appointment for Colonel Brayhrooke; it carried a small addition of pension, 300l. a year, and a house in which to reside, and it was, very near to a coffee estate which he had in the immediate vicinity. Colonel Brayhrooke in the beginning was a very strong and ardent believer in the propriety of the proclamation of martial law, but he changed his opinion as soon as it was decided that he should not be the person selected to take the command in the Kandyan district. But what did Colonel Drought say?— It having been stated recently in England that there was no rebellion in Ceylon in the year 1848, it may he necessary to adduce some facts out of many that could he brought forward, to prove that a rebellion did exist; although by persons resident in or well acquainted with the colony such proof is totally unneeded, as probably the slightest doubt on the subject never crossed the mind of any individual in a position to form an opinion on the matter. That was the language of Colonel Drought, commandant of the 15th Foot, who was sent, with soldiers under his command, into the district of Kandy, to suppress what he terms a rebellion, the existence of which no human being in the island doubted. Colonel Drought was not the man to be easily panic stricken by vain, imaginary terrors. Colonel Drought seemed, according to his hon. Friend himself (Mr. Baillie), to he a man of considerable firmness—a sort of military martinet; that was the suggestion by the stress which his hon. Friend laid on the way in which Colonel Drought gave instructions to those who conducted the courts-martial. Colonel Drought must have known reasons for considerable rigour; and what (let the House recollect) was the first step taken by Lord Torrington? Now, Lord Torrington knew himself that he was a young man, inexperienced in military affairs, and therefore the first thing he did was what any wise man would have done in the same situation. He sent for Colonel Fraser, an old officer residing in Ceylon, who had been there in the time that Sir Robert Brownrigg administered the affairs of the colony, and who had been concerned in the suppression of the rebellion at that time. Now, what was the advice given by Colonel Fraser? He said, "You have laid before me the accounts you have received from the different districts. It appears that the roads are barricaded, and that the passes in different parts of the provinces are shut up; that men to the number of 60,000 have marched from their forest fastnesses, coming down upon Matelle, Kandy, and Kornegalle; that there are no less than 20,000 stand of arms in their possession; that in the whole colony now, as compared with what it was in the time of Sir Robert Brownrigg, this army is as 2,000 to 11,000; the whole of the inhabitants of Kandy appear to be discontented with your Government, and not with yourselves alone, but with your antecedents; you have rejected all connexion with their temples, which gave them appointments and enabled them to receive tithe under your warrants; you have not sustained them, by yourselves holding that which was their assembly of kingly sovereignty, namely, the sacred tooth of their god; you have in that way dissipated the prestige of your position as kings of Ceylon; and you have been the means of invading their finest lands, by ploughing up the coffee estates, and those upon which their cattle roamed, and of invading their privacy, which is their peculiar delight. I, who am an old and experienced officer, tell you that this is an extremely serious outbreak. It is a rebellion which, if not checked in the bud, will lead to consequences that will be eminently disastrous, and we shall have over and over again repeated the scene which took place in 1818, when originally the civil power was called in to the aid of the military without being sustained by a proclamation of martial law. It was tried for several months; pestilence and other calamities decimated the troops, and at the end of six months, dealing with this temporising policy, you had to appeal to martial law, which, for a period of twelve months, was exerted under a system of monstrosity." It appears that those orders, given by General Brownrigg, are approved of by Colonel Braybrooke. Is this because atrocities revolting to human nature had been perpetrated—because single officers, upon their own responsibility, had hung up men four abreast—because one man had scoured the country, and not being able to find an object of hostility, he took hold of an old woman and hung her; and if he had not been sacrificed by Providence, if he had not been carried away by fever, he would have fallen a sacrifice to the justice of martial law. There was no magic in the words "martial law," as put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie). To use the phrase which the Duke of Wellington had employed upon this subject in another House, martial law was the law of the general commanding the military force, and for which he was responsible; therefore it must be left to the good sense of the officers who had to carry it out, to see whe- ther the result might not be a redemption and a salvation of the country in which it was put in force. That was martial law as administered at Ceylon, and it was not to be measured by the measure which would be given in times of peace to the pure military law. Having, then, alluded to that testimony as to martial law being necessary, he would now go on to Colonel Drought's statement. Colonel Drought said— Much surprise was felt when it became known that such a doubt had been expressed, as the following facts clearly show the opinion to be erroneous. At the first outbreak, numbers of classes in the island were so fully satisfied of the existence of a rebellion, that in numerous instances Europeans abandoned their property, and fled for their lives to Kandy from their respective estates in all parts of the adjacent country; both the civil and military authorities considered that the promptest and most energetic measures were necessary to be at once adopted, and those Europeans who had most experience of the Kandyan character were convinced that far more severe measures than those resorted to would be required finally to crush the insurrection. An opinion so universally and simultaneously adopted could scarcely be without foundation, as it is perfectly unreasonable to presume that a large number of Europeans residing at considerable distances from, and having but little or no communication with each other, should all be panic struck at the same time, without a known and adequate cause. He then went on to mention the attack that had been made on Matelle, and alluded to the force which he had at his command, which it would be seen was very insignificant indeed. While the force employed by Sir R. Brownrigg to put down the rebellion in 1818 was a force of some 11,000 men, there was at this time no more available force than 2,000 some odd hundreds, in the whole of Ceylon, and which could not be all concentrated upon the same point, because the exigencies of other districts required that there should be detachments there. At no period of the time did Colonel Braybrooke seem to have more than 1,100 or 1,200 men to put down this which Mr. Buller has designated as an eruption of 60,000 men, 24,000 of whom were armed with muskets, fowling-pieces, and guns of different descriptions. He then went on to say— My actual strength was under 400 men; and from information given by headmen and others, whom I had no reason to disbelieve, it appeared that from 50,000 to 70,000 armed natives were ready to surround and pour into the town. The hon. Member smiled, but he would see that that could be proved by independent testimony, and that it was not a matter to be smiled at:— There cannot he the slightest doubt of their grand object being the possession of Kandy, although their force first collected at Dambool, forty-five miles distant; they had arrived within fifteen miles of the town when met by the troops. The detachment on arriving at Matelle found the public buildings gutted, and as far as practicable destroyed; the houses on the surrounding coffee estates pillaged and deserted by the proprietors and overseers. One European, a Mr. Baker, fell into the hands of the rebels, and was most cruelly treated; he was rescued by the troops, but his sufferings wore so great, that for some time his mind was seriously affected. No second attack was made on Matelle after it had been taken possession of by our troops, but shortly after their arrival they were again under arms in consequence of large bodies of men appearing in the direction of Dambool. These parties were afterwards ascertained to have been reinforcements for the Pretender's army, which had approached Matelle in ignorance of the place being in possession of the troops. After mentioning that another insurrection occurred at Kornegalle, he went on to say— About the same time I received intelligence that the high roads from Trincomalee through Dambool to Kornegalle and Matelle, had been strongly barricaded with felled trees, &c, and the tappals, or letter carriers, were stopped for several days. Previous to his advance on Matelle, and to the attack on Warriapolle, the Pretender had been proclaimed king at Dambool, by the priest of the great temple there, and had received the homage of some headmen and of several thousand armed natives, as appears by the records of the Supreme Court on the trial of the rebels in 1848. So that the House would see that not only were there hundreds of armed men collecting together, but that those men were under an influence the most important, and most likely to give nerve to their efforts; that they were at the time having with them and over them, as a controller-general, a person who was one of the descendants of their native sovereigns, who had been a few days before crowned king in the temple of Dambool. Colonel Drought went on to say, and this was most applicable to the continuance of martial law— After the dispersion of the Pretender's army, he was still attended by a considerable band of armed followers, who gradually deserted him, on account of the incessant harassing pursuits they experienced from the military; he himself escaped till the 22nd September, when he was surprised and captured by a party of the Ceylon Rifles. At the very commencement of the rebellion the villages were abandoned by their inhabitants, and large bands of armed and unarmed marauders, taking advantage of the state of the country, commenced a system of plunder, which was carried on to an almost incredible extent, neighbours and even relations plundering each other, until checked by the punishment of some of the marauders by courts-martial, and the Govern- ment, by sequestration, taking under their own protection property left without an owner. He then adds— On receiving the proclamation of martial law, I assumed the powers with which I considered it invested me. I ordered the officers commanding posts to assemble courts-martial for the trial and summary punishment of offenders. I did not direct the provost marshals to patrol the country, as the area of operations being so extensive, I could not afford them sufficient protection in the execution of their duties. I therefore considered courts-martial the best available means of bringing offenders to immediate punishment. He begged the attention of the House, which had been hearing of the atrocities of this martial law, and the mode in which it was administered, to the statement which was here made by a person who was apparently no idle dreamer, or a man who would be subject to a panic, but the Lieutenant-Colonel of one of Her Majesty's regiments, and a man who had conducted himself upon this occasion in a most commendable manner. He says— The proclamation of martial law, and the salutary terror it inspired, had an effect which, to those not conversant with the Eastern character, would have appeared magical. The Kandyans were impressed with the idea that no power was vested in Government beyond that of trial by jury, when (if unsuccessful in their treasonable designs) they hoped, as on two former occasions, to secure a verdict of acquittal by a handsome retainer to the advocates to get them off, or by using the same means to interest the jury on their behalf. Information that I received caused me to order the reapprehension of two of the most influential chiefs of the district, Goolahclla and the Maha Nilleme, to whom there was every reason to believe more than suspicion attached. Goolahella and the Maha Nilleme were finally liberated on bail by order of the Queen's Advocate. It is my belief that had these two chiefs been brought to trial, the whole conspiracy among the headmen and priests as instigators of the rebellion, would have been satisfactorily brought to light. Now the hon. Member opposite asked the Queen's Advocate as to the guilt of those two parties. He replied that he believed in their guilt, but he feared the witnesses would not be believed by the jury, and he said that he adopted that belief without sending to the district judge, Mr. Staples, who knew the character of the witnesses, and who could have told him whether they were credible or not. There was also a marginal note which stated that the brother of the Queen's Advocate acted as the legal adviser to those two parties on that occasion. Colonel Drought stated another most important fact. He said— The consternation occasioned amongst the Malabar coolies by the rebellion and by the murder of several of them by the Kandyans, was so great, that they fled towards the coast, and the detachment under Lieutenant-Colonel Cochrane could not have commenced their march from Trincomalee had it not been for the camp-followers brought from Madras by tier Majesty's 25th regiment. I have dwelt on those facts to show clearly the error of the opinion that the rebellion in the Kandyan provinces was a mere riotous outbreak, and could have been subdued by calling out the military in aid, and not in supercession of the civil power. Matelle was entered by many thousands of armed men, with all the emblems of war—tomtoms and flags—under a leader who hail been proclaimed king by the ceremonies of anointing and reading the perit. Kornegalle, distant from Matelle more than forty miles, was attacked by 4,000 men. Her Majesty's troops were several times attacked and fired on. The intention of the rebels of marching on Kandy was notorious. Several coffee estates were pillaged; the Government being unable to protect the proprietors and overseers, they at first were constrained to leave their posts and take refuge in Kandy. The high roads from Trincomalee to Kandy and Kornegalle were barricaded, and the communication interrupted. The nominal head of the rebellion had been created king, with much ceremony, by influential priests of the great temple at Damboul, and had received the homage of many thousands. I may hero observe, that this fact alone is more than sufficient to require the term rebellion, and not riot, as its proper designation. Such were the statements of Colonel Drought with respect to what he had himself observed; and if the testimony of two gentlemen was to be taken and placed in contraposition the one to the other, the one being Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, who was quietly located at Colombo; and the other, Colonel Drought, who was in the centre of the operations, commanding the whole of the district, as a military man, employed for the suppression of this outbreak, it would be at once admitted that he was much more likely to form an accurate judgment as to what the character of that outbreak was. But one of the grounds of accusation against Lord Torrington was, that he did not listen to the advice of the Queen's Advocate and adviser. But was it to he said that because Lord Torrington did not listen to the remonstrance of a gentleman whose habits were altogether alien to the investigation of these matters, when he was sustained by the remainder of his Council, the Executive consisting of six persons, one of whom was a General acquainted with the data upon which this ought to be decided—was it to be said that he should be found fault with for not listening to one voice against six? But it had been stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) that the courts-martial were conducted by young and inexperienced subaltern officers. That might be true, but mark what was said by Colonel Drought:— It has been said that young and inexperienced officers were; in command at the several posts where the courts-martial were held. I may remark, that the facts were as follow:—Commandant at Kandy, 85 years' service; youngest officer on courts-martial was 26. Commandant at Dambool was Lieutenant-Colonel Cochrane, with 42 years' service; his youngest officer was at least 25 years of age. Commandant of Kornegalle, Major Layard, 16 years' service, and previous service in the Royal navy; youngest officer in his 22nd year. Commandant at Matelle was Captain Watson, 26 years' service; his youngest officer in his 23rd year. Captain Watson is an officer of considerable experience, and has served twenty-two years in the colony, 12 years of which period he was employed in the surveyor general and commissioner of roads department. He understands the Cingalese character perfectly, and few Europeans are personally acquainted with so many headmen and natives. A portion of the press, here and elsewhere, assisted by mischievous and designing individuals, having resorted to every means in their power, with a total disregard to truth, to attach to Government and the military the odium of unnecessary severity during martial law, I most emphatically deny such having been the case, knowing, as I do, that the aim of the Government in making examples of the principal rebels was to put a speedier termination to the outbreak: thus eventually sparing a far greater sacrifice of life—an opinion which I, and I may safely say all under my command, fully coincided in and acted on. None were tried except in cases of the greatest necessity; and I do not think the remark will be out of place here that 36 cases were tried before the Supreme Court for high treason, committed within the 27th of July and the 1st of August, 1848, a period of four days only, 19 of whom were convicted, whereas 17 were convicted by courts-martial for the same crime during the entire time martial law was in force; out of which number 3 were acquitted, 27 transported, and 17 executed; an aratchy was also executed for murder and plunder; making a total of 18. One other was sentenced to death, but was pardoned by his Excellency the Governor. An old officer, Major Lushington, a Companion of the Bath, who had served for several years in India, was one of the most active officers in those courts-martial. It has been said that in this case it is a proof of considerable cruelty that these courts-martial, when they came to deal with offences under martial law, found eighteen persons guilty of high treason, who were left for execution, and all executed. It did so happen that at the time the courts-martial were sitting, it was thought right that those offences which were committed before the court-martial law was proclaimed, should be dealt with by the civil power; and accordingly Sir Andrew Oliphant, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was summoned out of his turn, in order to give more solemnity to the matter, to that circuit, and he wont up to Kandy to conduct the trials of those persons who had been taken in treasonable practices before the courts-martial were proclaimed. Upon that occasion 34persons were found guilty before Sir Anthony Oliphant, 17 of whom were condemned to death. Their executions, indeed, did not take place; hut so far from being a proof of cruelty of the Governor, it was, surely, a proof of his clemency, that, upon the suggestion of the Chief Justice, he extended mercy to those seventeen people, on the ground that sufficient examples had already boon made. Then there was a statement to which he desired to allude, being the general statement made by Mr. Buller, Government agent for the Central Province, concerning the origin of and the circumstances connected with the rebellion at Kandy, in 1848. That statement was very nearly a transcript of what he read as having been stated by Colonel Drought. Mr. Buller says— The mass of the common people wove prevailed on to join by the assurance of the headmen that their chena lands were to he taxed, and that the other now taxes were but an instalment of thirty-two more which were coming'. There was this distinction between the rebellions of 1843 and that of 1848, that in the former the headmen were ready, but the people were less prepared to rise; whereas in the latter the headmen Avere the means, and these taxes the pretence, by misrepresenting winch the people were roused. That the insurrection of 1848 was but a continuation, a fresh manifestation of disloyalty and treason exhibited in 1843, no reasonable man in the Kandyan provinces entertains the shadow of a doubt. He adds— That the priests have a cause, and a growing cause, of discontent, I am aware is known to the country generally, and therefore needs no further allusion to it here. They have kept a keen eye upon the decline of their religion, and it is quite natural that this should raise discontent in their minds; but I am aware, and I speak from my own observation, that headmen have been always discontented, as far as their conduct has come to my knowledge. He then goes on to state what had taken place, to the following effect:—' The headmen had all entertained the idea that the common law was the only power that could be exerted in any case; that they were secure of being tried by the Supreme Court; when, either by the talent of the advocate, or by means of the jury, they would be sure to escape, as had happened on one or two former occasions, and once in the case of the Pretender himself, who had been tried at Badulla, on which occasion the judge summed up for a conviction. The jury was composed of seven natives and six Europeans, and, though it cannot he proved, there was little doubt on the minds of all present that the verdict was anything hut in accordance with the views of the six latter gentlemen. They calculated the chances, therefore, of the proof being insufficient; and if that was too strong, they still looked forward to escape by the aid of the jury, and, that at all events, imprisonment alone would he the punishment. But when they found that there was a court established which they had never contemplated, where there were no advocates and n jury, and when sentences were executed without time for appeal, it altered their plans entirely, and each was fearful of being brought before a tribunal where the guilty had no hope of escape. There was only one statement more in reference to this matter with which he would trouble the House, and that was one of great importance. In Ceylon there was a gentleman who held the office of advocate for the prisoners, whoso duty it was to defend such persons as the Crown allotted to him. That gentleman was Mr. Wilmot. Now, Mr. Wilmot, after these transactions had passed over, and having officiated at the whole of them, wrote the following letter, dated Colombo, November 8,1849:— My Lord—Having seen it announced in the public journals that it had been stated before the Committee of the House of Commons that there had been no rebellion, but a mere riot in the Kandyan province, a sense of justice to the Government of the colony prompts me, unsolicited, now that my professional duties in behalf of the prisoners who were tried before the Supreme Court for high treason have ceased, to express my firm and unalterable conviction that there did exist a widely-ramified and extended conspiracy among the priesthood and chiefs to drive the British out of the province, and to reestablish a Kandyan throne. Having been a resident in the colony for eighteen years, half of which period has been spent in the Kandyan province in the exercise of my profession, I could not avoid observing, in the course of a pretty extensive practice, and constant intercourse with natives of all ranks, that a strong feeling of jealousy had sprung up in the breasts of the chiefs since the advent of Europeans into the heart of the country, and the formation of coffee estates by the destruction of forests, which, under the Kandyan dynasty, were considered as a sort of perquisite or royal bounty appertaining to the offices of the high functionaries of the Crown. Considerable heartburnings also arose from the same cause among the lower orders, as the forests afforded pasturage for their cattle and game, and produced honey and firewood for them, &c. A spirit of dissatisfaction had likewise been engendered and fostered by the priesthood, which has increased in intensity since the period when the Government altogether dissevered itself from the support of the Budhist religion. In the year 1843 I officiated as advocate for prisoners who were tried for high treason, at Badulla (one of which number was the late Pretender), and in 1848 for those who were tried for the same offence at Kandy; and from facts that came to my knowledge in my intercourse with them, combined with what transpired of their plans and aims in 1843, I entertain not the shadow of a doubt that the object of the insurrection was the expulsion of the British from the Kandyan province. That the enterprise was not successful, must be entirely attributed to the prompt and energetic measures of the Government, and to the proclamation of martial law. The ordinary tribunals of the country were not adequate to the crisis. The proclamation, therefore, of martial law was imperatively demanded; nor do I think it remained in force an hour longer than was essentially requisite for the entire suppression of the rebellion. It ensured the capture of the King, a fact I had from his own lips; and until his capture had been effected, the rebellion might have been indefinitely protracted, to the total cessation of all mercantile and agricultural pursuits, and to the almost certain destruction of life and property. This sincere and unreserved expression of my opinion I owe to your Lordship as the head of the Government.—I have, &c. Edward P. WILMOT, Advocate for Prisoners. Now, he would ask ton. Members who had heard these statements, and those other two statements from which he had quoted, to say whether they thought that these statements were to be put aside merely because Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, who was not present on the occasion, and 'Colonel Braybroke, who was residing quietly at Colombo, and did not go up to Kandy, which was the centre of discontent and disaffection, and know nothing about it, appeared to have a different opinion? Were they to put the mere vague statements of comparatively uninformed persons against the fact that the General Officer and the Governor, with a majority of the Executive Council, fortified by the disinterested testimony of the gentleman whose letter he had just read, believed, from information derived from the best sources, that martial law was essential, and not only essential in its inception., but was mainly instrumental in its continuance, to the pacification of the island? So far as to the statements of the nature of the outbreak. There were other statements in relation to this matter to which he should proceed to call the attention of the House; but there was a still more important matter to be considered than any upon which he had yet touched, because it savoured so much of cruelty and atrocity on the part of Lord Torrington, that if he, with that unexplained accusation which was calmly made by the hon. Member for Inverness, was to allow it to stand before the country unrefuted, he, as Lord Torrington's advocate, would say that he (Lord Torrington) would be amenable to universal execration. But he was prepared to give the most full and ample contradiction to the charge, and to show that Sir Anthony Oliphant, whose appeal to his twenty years' service and grey hairs was so eloquently quoted by the hon. Member, did upon that occasion exhibit an omission of duty which, if he believed there had been guilt in the man, would not reflect much credit upon him individually. He begged the House to listen, for it was a most important matter to Lord Torrington. It involved a charge of worse almost than judicial murder, of reckless indifferentism and bloodseeking, and one which, if it was true, would be eminently discreditable to Lord Torrington. Now, the man alluded to was a priest, and was tried before Major Lushington, C. B., and other officers—Major Lushington having long served in India, and being a man perfectly conversant with the habits of the people of India and of those of Ceylon. The trial took place in open court: there was no exclusion of the people. There were in the court several advocates and also several proctors, who occasionally performed the duty of advocates when the regular counsel were not there; and amongst them was Mr. Proctor Smith, whoso statement, made subsequent to that of Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, seemed to have roused all this obloquy against Lord Torrington. Now, he must make this incidental remark—with regard to his own profession, if any dereliction of duty in a country like England, where the force of public opinion was so strong, was visited so severely, how much stronger ought the surveillance to be when the exercise of these important functions took place in a colony; and he said that upon looking to the records of Ceylon with regard to the person interposed as an advocate between the accuser and the accused, that the Queen's Advocate was a person who had graduated in the office of an Attorney General of the Cape, and who had rung the changes, for eight or ten years, as boys were employed in this country in the subordinate office of copying precedents; and he gave up the situation of clerk in a public office, and then, because he thought he could have favour from the then Chief Justice, he went to Ceylon, and, without the regular intervention of a legal education, or a proper call, he got himself foisted into the bar of that colony. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to discredit his statement; but he would appeal to that individual's own account of himself, and should have to comment on his conduct to show that if his antecedents had not boon such, perhaps his conduct would have been more befitting a gentleman. Mr. Selby was one of the advocates, and his brother was one of the proctors. The proctors were present in the court; the prisoner was standing at the bar. Major Lushington, the president of the court-martial, inquired, "Will any one of you, gentlemen proctors, defend this helpless priest?" He waited. His appeal was hoard by Mr. Smith, the informant of the Queen's Advocate, by Mr. Dunuville, and others, who were afterwards the foremost instigators of this persecution—for so he would call it—of the Governor. But there was not a single advocate or proctor in the court who would undertake the defence. And why? Because the money was not forth-coming. He would ask any of the Gentlemen around him—he would ask any man belonging to the Bar of the United Kingdom, whether he had ever heard of such a degrading instance of repudiation as that? The man was tried. The proceedings of the court-martial were taken by Colonel Drought. The proceedings of the court-martial were read over by the Governor. In those proceedings was a statement made by the prisoner himself, that he told the people he had been to the Rajah, which he afterwards qualified by saying it was the Rajah at Colombo, meaning the Governor; but it was proved that that was a phrase in the oriental language I which never applied to the Governor, and that the term Rajah applied to the Kandyan king. Before he came to the atrocity charged against Lord Torrington, let the House see what subsequently occurred, The man was taken to execution the next morning, and confessed his complicity in the transaction, and also his duplicity with respect to the Rajah, and that he had taken part in the rebellion of 1848. He would ask, was there not sufficient evidence to satisfy any human being of the fairness of the proceedings at the trial, conducted as it had been before Major Lushington, in open court? But in addition to what he had already stated, he would trouble the House with one important testimony that could not be questioned—the testimony of a clergyman of the Established Church, Mr. Owen Glenie, who, writing to Lord Torrington, said— My dear Lord—I have at various times heard so much nonsense talked concerning the trial of the priest who was shot in Kandy, and seen so much misrepresentation (were I to say untruth I should not use too strong a term) in print on the same subject, that I cannot but believe that certain parties, for their own purposes, are bent upon getting up a case without the slightest reference to what did really occur. As I was a resident in Kandy at the time, and was in the court from the commencement to the conclusion of the trial, and as the evidence of one competent from his education and pursuits to form an opinion, may deserve some slight attention, I venture to address you these few lines detailing the impression made on my mind at the time. Having never had an opportunity of witnessing a court-martial's proceedings in cases other than purely military, and having been desirous of observing its mode of taking evidence, I determined on the occasion of the priest's trial to attend throughout, and closely to watch all proceeding's. I did so from the opening of the court until the delivery of the sentence, and the conclusion forced upon me by the clear and simple evidence I heard was, that there could not exist in an unbiassed man's mind a shadow of doubt as to the guilt of the priest. The court-martial appeared to me to be conducted with the greatest possible fairness towards the prisoner; as one instance of which I may mention that the President, Major Lushington, seeing some of the Kandy Bar in the court, notified to them that he would gladly permit any of them to aid or advise the priest, in questioning or cross-examining the witnesses. This was also communicated to the prisoner, but neither did he seem to wish to avail himself of this assistance, nor did any of the legal gentlemen tender it to him. I felt convinced at the time, and am so still, that a jury free from faction, and aware of the obligation of jurymen's oaths, must have brought in a verdict of guilty. I should not have required five minutes' consideration, had I been on a jury, to make up my mind on the evidence I heard produced before that court-martial. (Signed) "S. O. GLENIE. Now, was that clergyman confirmed as to the proceedings of the court-martial? He was. The Deputy Queen's Advocate officiated at four courts-martial; and he would here remark incidentally, in answer to the statements iterated and reiterated by the hon. Member for Inverness with regard to the proceedings of Colonel Drought and other parties, that there was not one single scintilla of truth in the statement that Lord Torrington was ever consulted by them, or sanctioned their proceedings. It was certain that Mr. Stewart the Deputy Queen's Advocate attended four courts-martial. Who withdrew him from attending the rest? Was it Lord Torrington? Was it Colonel Drought? No; they were glad of the attendance of a man of competent skill, and who was a barrister, and who, according to the testimony of Sir A. Oliphant, was a person of superior acquirements. Now, what was his testimony as to the mode of conducting the courts-martial which he attended? He said— With reference to the courts-martial in Kandy, having officiated as a deputy judge-advocate on the four first trials, I am enabled to speak of the manner in which the proceedings in them were conducted. The evidence in each was fully taken down; the prisoners had every opportunity given them of cross-examining the witnesses, and had every facility afforded them of making their defence. The trials usually occupied several hours, and no unseemly haste was manifested in getting through them. In one of the cases, that against Porang Appoo, the active part he was known to have taken in the rebellion was not proved, and I intimated my opinion that it would be proper to have such evidence. But the Court did not consider it necessary under the other circumstances established. That was the evidence not merely of a bystander, though an educated clergyman, but a person who took part in the administration of the law, and who was interposed by the law between the prisoner and his accuser. What, then, became of the statement of the hon. Member for Inverness that in the proceedings before the courts-martial there was any unfairness? Was not the testimony the other way abundantly sufficient? This was proved by Mr. Buller, who was also present, and who stated that the vast majority of the bystanders who heard the priest tried, concurred in the propriety of the verdict. He would now return to the part taken by Lord Torrington in these transactions. Mr. Selby, the Queen's Advocate, was not present, but was in Colombo, to be in preparation for the trials before the Supreme Court. Mr. Selby met Mr. Smith, the proctor, who told him that he and the interpreter of the Court believed most distinctly that the man was not guilty. Now it was a very curious fact that Mr. Smith, who had an opportunity of making a defence for him, and who might have been his counsel, and cross-examined the witnesses, and who knew the language, and who in the ordinary instance of a gentleman would have interposed, sat with his arms folded, because the argent comptant was not forthcoming. Mr. Smith, the proctor, and Mr. Wilmot, the advocate for prisoners, stood by, and never interfered, although, according to the account given, a judicial murder was about to be perpetrated. Did any one imagine that a gentleman at the English Bar would not at once have acted on the suggestion of the Judge? But here these gentlemen when requested by the presiding Judge to fulfil a duty of humanity towards a wretched prisoner, folded their arms and stood by in supreme indifference, though some of them, at all events, declared themselves convinced of his innocence. The prisoner, however, having been found guilty upon clear evidence, after a patient and regular trial, having himself ultimately confessed his guilt, and the proceedings being submitted in duo course by Colonel Drought to the Governor General, was it to be said that the Governor, upon the mere idle hearsay statements of two or three individuals, was to hold his hand from the execution of the law, peculiarly essential to be enforced at the particular time, merely because the convicted person was a priest, whose punishment, being found guilty, would afford an example to the people whom he had misguided of especial benefit to the community? What occurred afterwards? Mr. Selby met Sir Anthony Oliphant, and told him his story, but, having told him his story, he advised him not to go to the Governor, lest he should be insulted, as he (Mr. Selby) had been. Sir Anthony said he was not afraid of being insulted, but he did not want to go just then, because, being in a weak state of health, he feared his system might be shaken by excitement, as he was fasting at the time. But, however, the evidence showed that, undeterred by Mr. Selby, he did go to the Governor, and was with him a quarter of an hour afterwards. What did Sir Anthony do when lie was with the Governor? Why, with all his impressions on the subject that the Governor ought to "hold his hand for a day or two," he did nothing at all—he only asked for a favour for his son. Now, he would ask any man who had witnessed the administration of justice in this country, who had witnessed the conduct of the venerable men who presided over our courts as Chief Justices, who had observed the conduct of the noble man who, in a green old ago had lately-retired from the presidency of the Court of Queen's Bench—he would ask whether, had any of these men been placed in the position in which Sir Anthony Oliphant had described himself, they would have permitted any fears of the Sovereign, or of the Sovereign's representative, to have deterred them from carrying out what, in their consciences, they believed to be their duty in reference to a man condemned to death upon grounds which they had been shown reasons to question? Yet this Ceylon Judge, who did not hesitate to address the Governor General in solicitation of a place for his son, hesitated, and omitted to address him, to save the life of this priest, who, he had been led to believe, was innocent. Surely a Judge who could thus conduct himself was no longer worthy to hold his judgeship. But as to Lord Torrington, having exercised a wise discretion throughout, having investigated the whole matter with the nicest discrimination, having subjected the accused to a fair and full trial, and having received from the convicted man's own lips a confession of his guilt, had he acted otherwise than he had acted under the critical circumstances of the colony, he would have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty. It was all very well to set up a cry of cruelty, to operate upon persons not acquainted with the facts of the case; but the Governor General, with solemn responsibilities weighing upon him, had to execute justice upon a man clearly condemned upon clear evidence of a crime calculated to involve the whole community in bloodshed and devastation. Those who were practically acquainted with the administration of the Home Office had not solitary experience of great exertions being made by humanity mongers to save the lives of offenders, as innocent, who themselves afterwards, at the approach of dissolution, had confessed their guilt.

Another charge that had been made against Lord Torrington was the charge of confiscation. Now, the fact was, that with the exception of the two cases of Maha Nilleme, and Goollahalla, the evidence against whom it was stated, in Answer 1,825, was considered by Mr. Selby sufficient to establish their guilt, provided the persons examined against them were trustworthy—with these two exceptions there had been no confiscations at all. No doubt, there had been a proclamation of confiscation, which was perhaps a necessary proceeding in order to strike terror into the ignorant natives; but actual confiscations, beyond the two cases to which he had referred, there had been none. The evidence showed, that when the inhabitants of the particular districts chose to go to war, they were in the habit of quitting their houses and taking to the jungle. It showed that the soldiers who were despatched to protect property and order, where, in these abandoned habitations, they found articles of consumption, of a perishable nature, made use of them, that they might not be wasted; but, in all cases where the proprietors could show that they had not participated in the rebellion, the value of the articles was made good to them; in other instances the property was sold, and the proceeds handed over to the owners when it was proved that they had not been engaged in the outrages. Not an instance had been shown, notwithstanding all the efforts of persons who for reasons of their own desired to make out a case against the Government, in which the Governor had not only acted with the best motives, but with a view to the security of property. He should like to inquire who were the persons who had fomented this matter against Lord Torrington? It was quite evident that, at first, all well-disposed persons at Ceylon, natives and Europeans, acquiesced in what had been done. It was matter of proof that public addresses in support of Lord Torrington had circulated uncontroverted throughout the island, and had been then presented to his Lordship; and that in 1848 and 1849 the Legislative Council bore high testimony to the value of his Lordship's exertions, which they designated the safeguard of the colony. Among the names which in the former year were appended to that testimony was the name of that Mr. Wodehouse who afterwards thought proper to characterise the rebellion as a trifling matter, not rising in importance above a mere riot. Now, there was a very active personage in the colony, one Mr. Elliot, the editor of a newspaper there. This gentleman had before come forward prominently upon two or three occasions, and it did so happen, that one of those occasions was the 26th of July—that day, by an extraordinary coincidence, being also the day on which the King was crowned. There was a meeting of the people at a place called Doomberrer, at which Mr. Elliot put himself forward as the great mouthpiece and organ by which the grievances of the people were to be transmitted to the Governor; but previous to that a very remarkable letter appeared in Mr. Elliot's paper, the Colombo Observer, to which he would call the attention of the House. He might, however, remark in passing that it was most distinctly shown that, whenever an outbreak was contemplated among the Kandyans, there had generally been a hint of the probability of assistance from the French, whom they believed to be the natural and hereditary enemies of the English. That was hinted at in the article to which he alluded; and the writer went on to say that if the people should pay the money required for the taxes lately imposed, they would not only be considered a race of slaves, obedient to every thing, just and unjust, done by the Government, but the world would not regard them as a race of men submitting to justice only. The description given by Mr. Laird showed Mr. Elliot to be a person of rather credulous temperament, for he said he was a hasty person, and did not in many instances sufficiently weigh matters of doubt before inserting them in his paper. As soon as these proceedings were over, Mr. Elliot, who on four several occasions, immediately about the period of the outbreak, had published in his papers several laudatory phrases in regard to the Governor in repressing these outbreaks, alluded to one to which lie wished particularly to call the attention of the House. At the time of this outbreak the coffee crop was ungathered. The persons employed in gathering it were coolies, and if they had been driven away the chances were that it would not have been gathered; and Mr. Elliot said to his mind the effect of an outbreak would be to drive the coolies out, and the whole of the coffee crop would be lost. The declared value of the coffee crop was 456,000l The value in the London market was estimated at 758,000l., and the duty payable would have been 661,000l. The interference of martial law by preserving peace and tranquillity in the country, by reassuring the feelings of these timorous coolies, had the effect of enabling them to realise the whole of the crop. And who was Mr. Elliot? He was a discontented person, who subsequently went with the Cingalese, and presented a petition to the Governor, stating that if His Excellency would not mercifully give them a favourable reply, they certainly would not obey any of these new laws. Now, subsequently to this outbreak, and subsequently to martial law being done away with, it occurred to Mr. Elliot and Mr. John Selby, the brother of the Queen's Advocate, that it would be useful to go into the provinces and collect evidence. Mr. John Selby had been employed for some time in the provinces—he had been called to the Bar after six months' probation in Ceylon. He found martial law interfered with his occupation, as it had done with many of the proctors, and the consequence was, that a proctorial cabal was got up against the Governor, and Mr. Selby was sent to London to lay their grievances before the hon. Member for Montrose, Lord Brougham, and other persons whose names were mentioned. It was important to know the data on which Mr. Elliot and Mr. Selby proceeded. They neither of them understood Cingalese. They advertised for complaints against the Governor, and got plenty, which were translated for them by Tickery Banda, who was afterwards transported for forgery. In that way they got up evidence against Lord Torrington. And now probably the House would bear with him while he read a gem in its way—one of the letters, extracted from the private crypt of Mr. M'Christie, another of the gentlemen engaged in the affair with Elliot and Co., showing the manner in which, colonial discontent was enabled to foster home practice. It was dated April 11, 1849, and was in these terms:— Neura Ellia, April 11, 1819. My dear M'Christie—I have just received your long scolding letter of the 23rd February up here, where I am happy to say the climate enables me to take it coolly, independently of the plea of justification, or at least extenuation, which I have to offer. When I engaged your services in our verandah case, I took good care and immense trouble to collect your fee, and, in order to make it up, had to come down with the dust pretty extensively myself. You afterwards very generously, I must say, volunteered your assistance as occasion presented itself; doubtless in pursuance of the scheme meditated of having an agent for the colony in London. Morgan took up the idea vigorously, and with, the assistance of myself and others, would probably have succeeded in more fortunate times. About the same time a subscription was commenced to present me with a piece of plate; but fearing that this might interfere with the collection for you, intimated that my affair might stand over, so that if you have not got a fee, neither has Mrs. Elliot her silver service, &c. The smash came. Some merchants (who you know are our mainstay in such matters) were totally ruined, and others so crippled that they could hardly keep upon their legs, and all classes felt the universal distress so keenly, that I clearly foresaw considerable difficulty in making up anything worth your acceptance. Morgan was still sanguine, but I consider myself in honour bound, as you probably would identify me with the matter, to let you know my doubts, as I had no more idea than yourself that you were to work for nothing on behalf of Ceylon. I would not ask you to do it for myself (though I might trespass somewhat on your kindness), and certainly would not tax your labour for others without making adequate compensation. I know you did make this appear a secondary consideration; but men like you and myself, with families dependent upon our exertions, must be paid for our services. I did, however, continue to furnish you with all the information in my power, by sending you regularly the overland paper, where you are aware every thing that comes to my knowledge appears. I admit that I did not send you the figures I promised, but the fact is, that the person who was engaged in preparing them left the island before he had completed the task. You will, however, find them in this month's paper. You must have taken great pains to put the speakers up on Ceylon affairs for the debate. They have made wonderfully few mistakes.' [Great laughter.] The writer then proceeded to speak in high terms of Mr. Laird; and afterwards adverting to Mr. Selby, he said— When Selby was coming away he met the Chief Justice and turned him back, as it would only be exposing him to insult. The priest, it is now known, was as innocent as you are of the rebellion. The Governor complains that the juries did not convict; but how could men act impartially when martial law was going on at the same time, and they every now and then hoard of three or four men shot? Remind Lord Brougham, if necessary, that the Governor ought to have the consent of the Legislative Council in proclaiming martial law. I have been urging Morgan to apply for habeas corpus on behalf of some of the men imprisoned under sentence of court-martial, and thus bring the question of legality to the test. If illegal, all the poor creatures torn from their families and transported to Malacca, have been illegally punished. The Act of Indemnity does not attempt to legalise the acts committed under martial law, but only protects the actors from personal consequences. Unless some competent authority makes inquiry, the amount of confiscated property cannot be ascertained, as the people are intimidated the moment they begin to complain. You will see in the Observer how Colonel Drought had a man arrested and brought up before him. One person boasts that he made 3,000;l. by plunder when acting under Captain Watson's orders at Matelle. I shall return to Colombo in a week or ten days, and then consult as to what is best to be done, not only in the way of giving further information, but also as an acknowledgment of your services by the people. It is quite evident that thus far you have been most successful in cramming Members, for without your assistance perfect strangers to the colony could not have made themselves up so admirably on the question. The excitement in Colombo I understand is intense; I hope to turn it to good account by the co-operation it must ensure. Merchants, planters, proctors, and burghers, whom lie has so grossly slandered, would gladly subscribe for a rope to hang Lord Torrington. This was the Lord Torrington whom they had before been lauding. And when he determined to leave the colony, it was not in consequence of a recall from home; but having ascertained that his private letters had been tampered with and shown to the Committee, he, in the spirit of a gentleman, sent in his resignation—he would not remain in the colony; he said that the minute the inquiry occurred every discontented servant in the colony whom he had coerced by retrenchment turned upon him, and applied to the hon. Member for Montrose and the Committee of the House of Commons. He felt as every gentleman must have done when his private correspondence was opened. As soon as the fact of his resignation became known in the colony, on the 9th of August, he received a memorial from the merchants and planters entreating him to remain, because in him they knew, deriving that knowledge from what he had already done for the colony, the man able and willing not merely to retrieve the condition of the colony, but raise it to a height of prosperity which it had never yet experienced. Mr. Selby came over to England. The Committee was got up. Every charge was heaped upon the head of Lord Torrington, and the charge of a judicial murder was made. Having now gone through the defence of Lord Torrington, he would ask the House in what position was his Lordship placed? When Lord Torrington had administered the government of Ceylon for a short time, a sudden outbreak of rebellion took place, and the people exhibited a very general willingness to shako off the British yoke. Lord Torrington adopted such measures as were most suitable and needful in such an emergency; he applied to the persons most competent to give him counsel, with the view of checking the progress of the rebellion, and of preserving the colony; and martial law was established, under which, it was true, some executions had taken place, though not to a greater extent than would have taken place if the proceedings had been conducted before the Supreme Court. Now, he (Serjeant Murphy) would say that if, under those circumstances, a vote of that House should condemn Lord Torriugton—if, after having acted to the best of his ability, and with the soundest motives, and with the advice of the Executive Council to guide him—after having restored peace to the colony, having left it with a flourishing exchequer, and laid the foundations of a continued prosperity—if, under such circumstances, Lord Torrington was to be visited with the animadversion and censure of the British House of Commons, then the sooner they gave up their colonial government the better. Let them consider the position in which a man would be placed ten thousand miles away from England, the depositary of the power of his Sovereign, in a country where he must be self-dependent, under circumstances where he must act with promptness upon emergencies, if by their vote that evening they should visit Lord Torrington with their censure, and thus establish a fearful precedent. By the adoption of such a course they would be telling every Governor of a colony to devote his chief attention to the intrigues and slander of his underlings, and to sit, like Dionysius, in his private chamber to hear what his subordinates said against him; they would tell him to reflect upon what is done in England before Committees; and then if war and rebellion should come, and bloodshed should take place, they would alter the character of the Motion, and the hon. Member for Montrose would, perhaps, bring an impeachment against him for squandering the public funds. He (Serjeant Murphy) knew that the position of a Governor of a colony was one of great difficulty; and he felt assured that, as there was a presumption, in the case of a common magistrate, that he acted rightly, to the best of his ability, so the British House of Commons would not form a different opinion in the case of a Colonial Governor, but that he would have, in a time of emergency like the present, the same trust awarded to him as was given of old to the magistrate of the Roman republic, Ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.

MR. KER SEYMER

, with perfect sincerity, admired the spirit and ability with which the hon. and learned Serjeant had come forward as the advocate of his absent Friend. He (Mr. K. Seymer) had never seen Lord Torrington until he heard him in another place speak (and speak well too) in defence of his policy; and, therefore, if he had no personal feeling in favour of the noble Lord, he had none against, and he brought to the consideration of the ease at least as impartial a mind as the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. The hon. and learned Serjeant began by warning the House against being led away by party feelings, as upon a question which might damage the Government; but he (Mr. K. Seymer) thought the hon. and learned Member might also claim exemption from party motives, as well as personal motives, since it was only the other night be had constrained his own feelings to vote against a Motion reflecting upon the Government, introduced into the discussion of a most important subject by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart), because he thought that Motion did savour of party, and sought unfairly to censure the Government. The circumstances now, however, were certainly different. The House was invited to discuss the policy of Lord Torrington, and to say "yes" or "no" to certain resolutions. They could not, therefore, escape a decision on the point at issue. They could not discuss a more important question, for there were considerations connected with it which involved the prosperity if not the existence of our colonial empire. What was now the tie that bound us to our Colonies? We had deprived them of every advantage which they formerly had possessed in the markets of the mother country—we had abandoned the idea of constituting with our colonies a sort of Zollverein; and, with respect to Ceylon, we did not even protect the colonists from adulterations. We said, they should contribute to our good by imposing duties upon their produce equal to that of foreigners, and we demanded their allegiance. What could we offer in return Only one thing—good government. Good government, in the case of a colony circumstanced like Ceylon, meant a good Governor; and the Colonial Office, sensible of the fact, ought to have selected for the office only such a man as they knew to be competent for the discharge of his duties. He was conscious of the inconvenience of speaking of Lord Torrington in his absence; but he was far from thinking that that inconvenience amounted to a prohibition to discuss the conduct of the noble Lord. It did not frequently happen that Colonial Governors were Members of the House of Commons. The noble Earl at the head of the Colonial department, whose conduct was much more reprehensible than that of Lord Torrington, was not a Member of that House; and they must altogether abdicate their office with reference to Colonial affairs if they were to abstain from criticising the conduct of those who were concerned in such affairs, on the plea that they were not present to defend themselves. He admitted the difficulty of the situation in which Lord Torrington had been placed; but what reason had the Government to suppose that he possessed the requisite qualifications to enable him to cope successfully with that difficulty? Lord Torrington had had the advantage of a certain amount of attendance at Court. He had also been a railway director, and had built cow sheds. All these advantages he (Mr. K. Seymer) had also enjoyed; but he was far from feeling that on that account he was qualified to undertake the duties of Governor of Ceylon. He did not think that the Ceylon Committee had been at all fairly treated by the Colonial Office during the course of their investigation. When the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies spoke in that House on the Motion which had led to the appointment of the Committee, he gave an express assurance that if an inquiry was desired, the Colonial Office would afford to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baillie) the amplest opportunities to make good his charges. But that pledge, thus solemnly given, had not been redeemed. The conduct of the Colonial Office with respect to those witnesses who were required to elucidate the investigation of the Committee, was in the highest degree censurable. It was a singular circumstance, that whereas the principal witness required for the Government happened to be in England on leave at the precise moment when he was wanted, the witnesses required by the Committee were only procured with the most extreme difficulty, and would not have been forthcoming at all, had it not been for a narrow division of the House. He certainly thought that the fear and alarm which might have prevailed among the coffee-planters and those persons possessing property in Ceylon ought not to have influenced the conduct of the Governor and other authorities, for he could not forget that the sanguinary code which once existed in this country was established for the protection of property, and was not abrogated by the wish of those who wore possessors of property. The insurrection had been originally represented as a very insignificant affair, and so no doubt it was. It was not until after numerous exactions, and enormous confiscations and the proclamation of martial law, that it turned out to be something much more considerable than had at first been apprehended. When the first intimation of disorder in the colony reached this country, the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies stated, in reply to a question put to him upon the subject, that the army had been ordered out rather for show than for effect; but that there was rather more of effect in the manœuvre than the hon. Under Secretary was willing to admit, was evidenced by the fact, that one or two hundred persons were killed. He confessed, however, that he could see no reason for such severe action on the part of the troops, for the whole affair was contemptibly insignificant; and nothing could be more trumpery, or indeed more cowardly, than the conduct of those against whom the arms of the soldiery were turned. The fact was, that the insurrection, paltry and insignificant in the first instance, was magnified into importance by the extravagant manner in which it was punished; and it then suited the purposes of the Colonial Office to represent it as a general national rising. Lord Torrington stated in his printed defence that he proclaimed martial law with the advice of the Major General and the Queen's Advocate; but this was a mistake. The noble Lord merely consulted the Queen's Advocate as to his legal competency to proclaim martial law under certain, circumstances, but he never asked the advice of the Advocate as to the wisdom and the propriety of doing so on the present occasion. He (Mr. Seymer), however, was in candour compelled to admit, that though he did not think that Lord Torrington had make out a good case for himself, he liked the spirit of the noble Lord's defence, which was that of a nobleman and a gentleman. The noble Lord spoke as though he were an injured man; and so, no doubt, he was, first, in having been made to fill a position for which he was not competent; and, secondly, in having been recalled for the trumpery and insufficient reason of not having kept order among his subordinates. Lord Torrington in his defence said, that the proclamation of martial law was a humane measure towards the well-disposed; but they had the evidence of Colonel Braybrooke, and of the Queen's Advocate, that the people were driven from their houses by the martial law, and were afraid to come back, even those who were innocent. As for the conduct of the noble Earl at the bead of the Colonial Department, it was as utterly inexplicable in this case as in that of Mr. Selby, whom, after characterising as a "scandalous calumniator," he had reinstated in his office, and sent back to the colony. He (Mr. Seymer) did not attach any importance to the votes of the Legislative Council on the subject of Lord Torrington's executive policy. It was a subject with which they had no business to meddle—in interfering with it, they travelled out of their legitimate domain. But even though the fact were not so, their votes on such a Question would be of but little value, for it was notorious that the majority of the Council were merely the creatures of the Government. But there was some spirit of independence shown even in the Legislative Council, for when they were asked to pass a law of indemnity, and when it was proposed that Lord Torrington and Colonel Drought should be the judges, one-half the Council voted against Lord Torrington. Colonel Drought had been represented as a humane and kindhearted man; but if the acts attributed to him by the evidence were those to which a humane and kindhearted man was compelled, under the operation of martial law, how great must be the responsibility which rested upon the man who proclaimed martial law, or who continued it one moment longer than might he necessary! Colonel Braybrooke gave a most distressing account of the mode in which martial law was administered in the colony; and although Earl Grey, acting upon his uniform policy of turning obloquy and discredit on the witnesses whose evidence told against the Government, bad endeavoured to get the gallant Colonel punished, his testimony remained uncontradicted to this hour. The complimentary addresses presented to Lord Torrington were of little importance, for it was well known that when a man was about to take his departure, many men would address some valedictory compliments to him, who would be very sorry to be instrumental in bringing him back again. Moreover, Mr. Mitford had assured them that he could get 30,000 native petitions or addresses upon any subject that he pleased. [Mr. HAWES: Yes, addresses against the Government.] If they might be got up on any subject, the statement proved their general worthlessness, and was as valuable for one side of the argument as the other. Then, with regard to the European petition, it stated that they believed the resignation of the Governor would not be attributed to the right cause, but that there were indisposed persons in the colony who would take advantage of it. He believed that these persons were much alarmed for the safety of their estates, and they would find that such persons were always in favour of the severest laws for the protection of property. As the present was a question which concerned the Colonial Office even more than Lord Torrington, he could not help alluding again to the conduct of that department. The lion, and learned Gentleman who had just addressed them had adopted the old story in a bad case, and, like the Colonial Office, had abused all the witnesses who gave testimony against the Government. He considered that the mode in which the Colonial Office and its supporters had endeavoured to discredit the testimony of adverse witnesses, and to attribute to them bad motives, deserved strong condemnation. Mr. Wodehouse, for instance, gave important evidence against the Government, and attempts were at once made to throw discredit upon his character, and to destroy the effect of his testimony. Mr. Wodehouse felt bound to defend his character; and, to disprove what was said against him, he alluded to the existence of a private letter, which it was but justice to say he showed the greatest unwillingness to produce. Sir Emerson Tennent also felt it necessary for his own justification to produce a private letter from Lord Torrington to the Committee, though he expressed great reluctance to do so; but the lion. Under Secretary for the Colonies said that Sir Emerson Tennent was bound to set himself right with the Committee. Tot in a despatch signed by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, the production of private letters by these gentlemen in their own defence was designated as a most objectionable proceeding; and after all these disagreements and unpleasant recriminations, both these gentlemen had been again sent out to the colonies in official situations. The only witness who had not been attacked seemed to be Sir Anthony Oliphant, whose character, however, stood so high that it could not he assailed. The Resolution stated— That this House, having taken into its consideration the evidence adduced before the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of Ceylon, is of opinion that the punishments inflicted during the late disturbances in that island were excessive and uncalled for. He could only say, after having read the evidence very attentively, that the impression on his mind was decidedly that they were excessive and uncalled for. He did not attribute unworthy motives to Lord Torrington—God forbid that he should do so!—but he believed that the noble Lord had been placed in a position for which he was not quite qualified, and that he and those around him were deficient in moral courage, and had been alarmed beyond the necessities of the occasion. The Resolution went on to say, that— The execution of eighteen persons, and the imprisonment, transportation, and corporal punishment of 140 other persons on this occasion, is at variance with the merciful administration of the British penal laws. That, he thought, was evident. Let them try the case by an example nearer home. Let them imagine an insurrection in Ireland, and one soldier wounded in a collision where no resistance was offered. Would any one for a moment advocate the adoption of such extreme measures as had been resorted to in Ceylon? One of the worst parts of the whole business, he thought, was the manner in which Lord Torrington had treated the recommendation to mercy in the case of those seventeen individuals. Could any one believe that a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would ever act in a similar way, under similar circumstances? It was such things as that they meant when they talked of the unmerciful administration of the British penal law. He had an observation to address to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon that occasion. The noble Lord was very fond of lecturing foreign Sovereigns with respect to the manner in which they treated their rebellious subjects. Now he (Mr. K. Seymer) was not fond of interfering unnecessarily in the affairs of other countries; and he was anxious that the noble Lord, whenever he might feel disposed to pursue that course, would remember Ceylon and Cephalonia, and then he believed that the noble Lord would be convinced of the propriety of holding his tongue, or rather, of withholding his pen; for his communications with other States were fortunately not by word of mouth. They were called upon, finally, to express their belief that "the conduct of Earl Grey, in signifying Her Majesty's approbation of the conduct of Lord Torrington during and subsequent to the disturbances, was precipitate and injudicious." That, he confessed, was, in his opinion, the most important part they had to consider. For his part, he could not view the conduct of Earl Grey in that matter in any other light than as pregnant with danger to the security of our colonial empire. If Earl Grey had informed Lord Torrington that he recalled him on what every one believed to be the true ground of his recall—namely, because he had been led by his inexperience into the exercise of undue severity, and his want of moral courage—then he (Mr. Seymer) should never have said a word upon the subject. But when Earl Grey told Lord Torrington that he approved of his conduct in dealing with that insurrection, and recalled him simply because he did not keep his subordinates in order, it was high time that the House of Commons should be called upon to determine whether it would ratify that decision. This country stood at present in a critical position with regard to her colonies; and when the inhabitants of those dependencies saw that the conduct of Lord Torring- ton was entirely approved of by the Colonial Office in this country, such a circum -stance would, he feared, tend very much to shake their allegiance to the British Crown. The other night the House had been counted out on an important Colonial Motion; and if the colonists should find that the House of Commons either did not take any notice of their complaints, or came to a wrong decision with respect to them, this country could not long maintain their regard or attachment. In conclusion, he had only to state that he should feel it his duty to give his most earnest support to the Motion.

EARL GROSVENOR

said, he had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with Lord Torrington, but he had been to Ceylon, and having had a personal opportunity of witnessing the beneficial effects of the noble Lord's administration, he should not hesitate to record his vote against the present Motion. The revenue of the island was increasing, and the general prospects of the colony had become highly satisfactory. These agreeable results were mainly to be attributed to the policy adopted by Lord Torrington—a policy founded on the judicious principle of checking the undue influence of the chiefs over the natives, who were too easily led. He did not believe that the complimentary addresses that had been presented to Lord Torrington deserved the ridicule that had been heaped upon them. One of these had been signed by no less than 150 of the principal coffee-planters, with many of whom he was himself acquainted. He believed that the hostility which Lord Torrington had had to encounter originated in other circumstances than those now under the consideration of the House, and that those who had been most active in promoting it were neither the most estimable nor the most influential in the colony. If the insurrection had not been crushed in the bud, social order would have been destroyed, and the colony would have been most seriously injured. He bore his willing testimony to the perfect order and regularity which now prevailed in the island; and he was confident that Ceylon, when its resources were fully developed, would become one of the richest colonies in the possession of Her Majesty. He was confident that the policy pursued by Lord Torrington was that which was best suited to the circumstances of the case, and he should therefore vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that it was always with regret that he found himself op-posed to the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) on questions connected with our colonies. With him he had gone through so many battles in that House, in support of what he considered to be good government for the colonies, that he never doubted so much his own opinion as when it happened to be different from that entertained by the hon. Member. At first sight, therefore, he should have been inclined to assume that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) was right in the Motion which he had made. He (Mr. Roebuck) must confess that there were circumstances connected with the appointment of Lord Torrington as Governor of Ceylon which might almost induce any impartial person to view this case with some suspicion. It seemed as if, in that appointment, the principle which had influenced Governments in many other appointments had been acted upon—that the noble Lord was appointed not so much because he was the most efficient person, as because some persons regarded his appointment as one that pleased them best. These circumstances had given his mind a bias rather against the Government of the noble Lord than in favour of it. When, therefore, he came to the consideration of the subject in this frame of mind, he felt it his duty, after going carefully over the evidence, not only to the noble Lord who was the subject of this accusation, but to all future Governors of colonies, to express his opinion unreservedly in support of the noble Lord's administration. In the first place, he thought a great mistake had been made in reference to the Government of Ceylon by calling it a colony. Now, a colony it was not, in any proper sense of the term. A colony, in his conception of the term, was a country peopled, or about to be peopled, by emigrants from this country, or their descendants, who had taken out with them and adopted our habits, our laws, and our institutions. This was what he called a colony. But Ceylon was quite a different thing. It was an outlying possession of England, peopled with various races having fixed habits of their own, a religion to which they were attached differing very much from our own, and speaking languages entirely different—a possession which had been obtained by the sword, and which was retained by force. There was a broad distinction, therefore, in the rules of government which ought to be applied between these two sets of possessions. He who should judge of the administration of an outlying possession like Ceylon by the rules of constitutional government, would, by pedantically adhering to forms, lose the substance which ought to be secured. He (Mr. Roebuck) tested the government of a possession like Ceylon by the result, and he only asked whether security had been obtained at the least possible expense of pain and suffering to the community? It would prove in the end mischievous to apply that rule to a constitutional Government like that of England. An enlightened despotism in this country would be intolerable and mischievous in the extreme; but for India and Ceylon it was the most beneficial form of government that could at present be administered. He said this to show the House that he did not blink the question at all. Now, how did we acquire Ceylon? At the end of the last century we took by force the greater part of the island from the Dutch, who had themselves taken it from the Portuguese. In 1815, the kingdom of Kandy was ceded to us by treaty, and we entered on all the rights and the obligations of sovereignty. The population was a most remarkable one, consisting of Malays, Cingalese, and Aborigines, among whom a sort of rude government had existed. They had a king, various chiefs, and an influential priesthood, and when we entered on the sovereignty of Ceylon, we entered into all the obligations of the kings, of that country with respect to the priesthood as well as the people. The people considered the British Government was like their own, which they could only cheek and control by the force of insurrection; but when England came to obtain dominion over them, that check ceased. The consequences were immediate. After the year 1815 the influence which we exercised destroyed the power of the chiefs and the headmen, and very much weakened the power of the priesthood; but our rule was beneficial to the vast body of the people, and therefore they were favourable to the British Government. But in a country like Ceylon, when subjected to English rule, there were English as well as provincial difficulties to be encountered. Religious difficulties arose, and the real cause of the disturbances was the religious bigotry which the Colonial Secretary had fostered. The priests were formerly maintained by contributions levied under the authority of the Kings of Kandy; but when our Governors went there, these contributions were no longer supported by the royal authority, and the resources and influence of the priesthood declined considerably. Well, a rebellion broke out in 1818, and what were the principles then acted upon? He begged the attention of those hon. Members who said Lord Torrington ought to have been cautious, prudent, and merciful, to the result which followed Sir Robert Brownrigg's policy. Sir Robert Brownrigg hesitated at first, and did not, until necessity compelled him, proclaim martial law. A long war followed, and it was years before the insurrection was put down. There were about 10,000 natives killed, a large English army was wasted, and great expense was incurred. That was the result of the prudence and the mercy which the hon. Members opposite inculcated. For a long time the smouldering fires of insurrection were ready to break out; but on account of the beneficence of our rule the people generally became attached to us, as far as they understood the scope and object of the regulations introduced by the British Government. The priests and chiefs, therefore, were not able to prevail upon the people to rise against us, and they were obliged to wait for a favourable opportunity, which was brought about by the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department. When Mr. Stewart Mackenzie went to Ceylon, he considered that Buddhism was idolatry, and that consequently its support was not consistent with the principles of the Christian religion. On Lord Stanley's accession to office, however, that nobleman acted more wisely and liberally, and finding that he had to deal with an ignorant and bigoted people, he endeavoured to govern them by means of their religious feelings. The noble Earl now at the head of the Colonial Department chose to throw away this principle of government; but all that he (Mr. Roebuck) could say, was, that if England thought proper to have these colonial possessions, and to plant her flag there, she was bound to consider the religious feelings of the people among whom she went, and on whom she imposed her most unwelcome connection. The noble Earl the Colonial Secretary determined to sever the connection between royalty and the priesthood, and not to issue warrants for the collection of the revenues by which they had been maintained, and the consequence was that the priests became more exasperated against us than before, and a dangerous and extensive conspiracy was proved to have been formed. Hon. Gentlemen ought not to think that this insurrection was a trifling one, because it was easily put down, nor charge the Governor with cruelty because he was successful. If he had been weak, vacillating, and hesitating, we should have had the flame of discontent spreading from one end of the country to the other. But because he was wise in counsel and bold in action, and because his policy was completely effective, they turned round and said, "Look at this! why, there was no insurrection—it is all a farce!" And thus it was because the Government of Lord Torrington was effective, that the charge was brought against him. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie), as he (Mr. Roebuck) understood him, brought a series of accusations against Lord Torrington, for the purpose—most constitutional, he allowed—of grounding an accusation against the Colonial Secretary for having given his sanction and approbation to that conduct, which, by his series of Resolutions, the hon. Gentleman intended to impugn. The hon. Gentleman struck first at the servant, in order to attack the head; and if he established his first position, the second necessarily followed. If the policy of Lord Torrington was wrong, the Government deserved censure—there was no escape from that; and he allowed the hon. Gentleman the strength of that argument. Therefore he (Mr. Roebuck) should begin at the beginning, and justify Lord Torrington, not from any feelings which he entertained towards that noble Lord—he did not pretend to represent Lord Torrington—but he was there as a legislator of this great country to defend what he believed to he the true policy with regard to one part of her possessions, and he was not to be led away by the term "colony." Well, Lord Torrington began the government of Ceylon under the most difficult circumstances. He found an empty exchequer, and he found a hotbed of dissension. It was like placing a person's hand in a wasp's nest. It was curious, but they were all quarrelling. It was a small family compact in imitation of a larger one; and it was clear that the moment an interloper came—and those who had lived in the Colonies knew exactly what that meant—the moment a new man was introduced to interfere with those who thought of making a little estate for them- selves and their families—the instant he appeared amongst them, if he had been an angel of light, they would have quarrelled; but as he was Sir Emerson Tennent, he (Mr. Roebuck) could understand how they should soon have got a hold upon him. They got him into a quarrel, and in the midst of that quarrel the unsuspicious Lord Torrington arrived upon the scene. Let any one read all these blue books, if he could, and wade through the papers, and he would see, from beginning to end, that there was a spirit of insubordination, discontent, intrigue, and, altogether, a falsity of purpose. And now, to say a word or two as to the way in which they had become acquainted with these proceedings—and first as to the Government. Now, the Government, when it found its Governor attacked, ought to have made up its mind, and said it should approve or disapprove of his conduct. They ought to have made themselves fully acquainted with the subject, and, having formed their determination, should have come to that House, there stated it, and maintained it. But the Government did not do that. They had formed a determination and came down to that House, but, meeting a formidable opposition, and seeing the gathering of forces on the Opposition benches, they changed their purpose, instead of saying they should stand by the Governor, they thought him right, and they should maintain their opinion if the House of Commons chose to differ with them; and here was the mischief of the course pursued by the Government. In the Colonies they could not expect to have bold, firm, and politic Governors if they were to be thus treated. And because he believed that Lord Torrington—merely as Governor, for he knew nothing of him in any other sense—had not been properly defended and maintained, he (Mr. Roebuck) came forward as a representative of this country, as far as he could, to aid and assist in maintaining what he believed to be truth. And he would ask anybody to look at the proceedings of that Committee, and say whether he ever read a stranger medley of bitter hate, of most unfaithful conduct, of prying and pestilent curiosity? He would ask, was that the way in which the Governor of a country ought to be treated? Why, he found a woman's letter paraded in these dissensions, addressing some person on the most intimate terms and friendly relations, and dragged out of the pocket of the gentleman to whom it was addressed, and placed before the 658 Members composing that House, and circulated, perhaps, to gratify a prurient curiosity out of doors. He was convinced that, although he might object to the application of secondary rules to a colony like that, yet there were certain plain and simple secondary rules of ordinary morality, and one of those was that they should not violate the sacredness of private life; and the confidential relations of private life could never be broken through with benefit to the public. It was not for him to say who began these unseemly transactions. They had taken place; and the Committee were the instruments—that Committee the majority of whose Members could have controlled them, and therefore the Committee were to blame in this respect. Well, and what did the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) mean? It meant to cast aside all that idle inquiry. That House had nothing to do with the merely personal differences between Mr. Wodehouse, and Sir Emerson Tennent, and Lord Torrington. What they had to do with were the Resolutions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire. They went to the real pith of this matter, and as such he (Mr. Roebuck) should deal with them. He should not condescend to ask who began it first, or whether Lord Torrington was wise or foolish in trusting to any Gentleman's honour. What he had to deal with was the conduct of Lord Torrington as Governor of Ceylon. The hon. Gentleman's Resolutions said that he was cruel—that he unnecessarily declared martial law. That was the first proposition. That he unnecessarily continued it—that was the second proposition. And, that, while it lasted, he was cruel in the application of punishment; and in that was included also the impropriety of the mode in which the trials were conducted. These he took to be the four points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Well, they had had a great deal of talk about what was called "martial law." The phrase was an improper one. What was meant by the declaration of martial law? It was to abrogate all law, and to institute, in place of law, force—the force of the sword if they would, the responsible person being the head of the Government. Let them not confound it with the rules of what was called martial law, as instituted by the Mutiny Act. It had nothing to do with those rules. It was, he repeated, the abrogation of all law—the creation of a supreme Power, namely, the will of the ruler, the ruler being responsible for what he did while exercising that unbounded authority. Now, he wished to take the matter step by step, and he wished any person who thought he was wrong to tell him whether the definition he had just given was incorrect or not. Then came the question, was the noble Lord (Lord Torrington) justified in proclaiming that so-called martial law—that was, was the danger of that nature that it would justify him in the abrogation of law, and in substituting for it the despotism which he had described? Now, somebody—he believed the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer)—had stated that the Council which had passed the Act of Indemnity had travelled beyond their province in so doing. Now, what was the Government of Ceylon? It was constituted by Charter in 1832, giving an executive council, a legislative council, and a judicial authority. The legislative council passed ordinances; the executive council and the Governor having the largest and most responsible power. And in the Governor's Commission he suspected it would be found that there were powers given which were quite sufficient for the declaration of martial law. Now he should take the law as laid down by the Queen's Advocate on that occasion, who said that the Governor had the power, he being responsible, and the policy of the proceedings resting on his shoulders. Well, was the Governor justified? First, let them look to the authority under which he acted. He appealed to his executive council. To every person he appealed, one after another, and everyone of them coincided. Let not the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) shift from the point, and go wrong. Mr. Wodehouse himself acknowledged that, although not present on the 29th of July, yet his conduct subsequently, and almost immediately after, did sanction and authorise the Governor in the proclamation of martial law, as being absolutely called for, most judicious, and by the circumstances warranted. There was also General Smelt, who was present, and he also coincided in the necessity. That was on the 29th of July. Then came the 31st of July, on which occasion there were present every member of the executive council; and every one of them coincided in the necessity of proclaiming martial law, declared that it was absolutely necesary, and that, considering the past history of Ceylon, it was the wisest, safest, and most judicious measure. He had heard a great deal of talk about Lord Torrington's youth and want of experience. That might be all very easy to say; but he was sent out to assume the most difficult position in which they could place any Governor, young or old, experienced or inexperienced. The noble Lord declared that it was his own experience, from the circumstances and information which came before him, and by which he alone could be guided, that convinced him that it would be better at once to have recourse to this power. Every one of his proper advisers, by whom he was surrounded by law, and who possessed a peculiar knowledge of that country, all coincided and said the same thing. Then here they had the first step. It would not do for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) to come and say, "I think this was unwise, judging from the result;" because, as he (Mr. Roebuck) had already said, the success made it appear that it was not necessary, and the very wisdom of the proceeding was the ground of its being impeached. Now he came to the intervening time—the power conferred under what was called martial law, and the mode in which it was exercised. And here he was met by a statement drawn from the Mutiny Act. He was told that certain forms were requisite. He denied it altogether. The Mutiny Act had nothing to do with the matter. They had declared that law should cease. [Mr. BAILLIE dissented.] The hon. Gentleman might shake his head, but could he shake these arguments? All law ceased, and they had only to inquire whether they had constituted the best tribunal which under the circumstances could be formed. Now the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was most anxious for economy in our expenditure, and, amongst other things, he and the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) put their finger on the large military establishments for maintaining our power in the colonies. Well, if they would send to Ceylon a large number of soldiers, they might constitute an admirable-looking court-martial on any occasion. But when he knew that what was called the civil power in certain districts where these insurrections occurred was really not composed of more than two or three people—that was to say, Europeans—he was bound to turn round and ask, how, under the circumstances, could they constitute a good tribunal for their purpose? And then he was met by a statement of the lawyers. Now, he did not want to impugn any of his learned brethren; but of this he was quite certain, that if we had listened to the lawyers which this land sent forth, we should not now he in possession of our Indian empire. A Government must remember that lawyers wore not statesmen. [Ironical cries of "Hear, hear!"] He knew well how the arrow, glancing hack, struck him from whom it came. But the truth of the statement was not impugned thereby, and he stated broadly that those who were lawyers, and lawyers only, wore not the best statesmen. He would advise those who took the opinion of lawyers as their guide to do so with reservation and care, and not to assume that because they found fault, the statesman must be in error. Well, but returning to this court-martial—"Oh" (it was said) "there was the Judge Advocate of Ceylon;" and it was supposed that the existence of the Judge Advocate in that case would have been an additional protection. But under the circumstances he could very easily also suppose that justice was done, and that those persons who were convicted were treated with all the fairness that would have been shown, even if the Judge Advocate had been present. But there was a circumstance connected with these trials which he could not pass over—and again it touched his learned brethren—but of this he was sure, that such a circumstance could not have occurred in England. And when they came to him (Mr. Roebuck) to talk about their lawyers in Ceylon, he should just judge them by their conduct. And what was that? Why, that poor priest for whom hon. Gentlemen were so careful, and for whom so much sympathy was evinced, what did these military men do with regard to him? They said to the man accused, "You may ask what questions you like, you may get what witnesses you please, and you may have any counsel you choose." And the accused man, turning round, as he might do, in an English court of justice, fixed his eye on the individual who he naturally conceived would be his best advocate, as knowing him to be learned in the proceedings of the court before which he was arraigned; and by a significant gesture the poor prisoner expressed his wish to have him to plead his cause and defend his life. And what was the answer he received from this civilian—this legal oracle—this wonderful defender and advocate of men's lives and liberties? Why, with a significant rub of the hands, "The money first, and then I'll defend you!" He was not stating what was not fully borne out; and he said this was a significant trait in this matter. He was very much inclined to believe that his gallant countrymen who sat in judgment there, although they might have been the youthful men they were described to be, had those high sentiments of honour which would have induced him rather to confide his life to their decision than to that of this proctor. But he maintained that three English gentlemen sitting in judgment, under these circumstances, were a most efficient and safe tribunal. And why? He judged by the very thing to which they were all referring; for pari passu with the proceedings of the soldiers were the proceedings of the criminal courts, and nobody pretended to say that those whom the law courts convicted were not properly convicted; but the law courts convicted as many, if not more, than the soldiers, and they convicted those who were taken before martial law was declared, and in fact they convicted those against whom, he took it, there was not any more evidence than there was against those who were convicted by the military tribunal. But he was told also that the Judge recommended them to mercy; and he was told that the Judge who did so bore a high character. He (Mr. Roebuck) was not there to impugn it; but of this he was quite sure, that in a country like that, a Judge, whatever might be his opinion, however strong it might be with respect to the decision of the chief officer of Government, in carrying out the sentence of the law, would do wisely, to say nothing more, to keep that opinion to himself; or to confide it, in all confidence and secrecy, to the chief under whom he was serving, and not to make it public to acquire popularity by so doing. Now, he said that was a grave and serious error on the part of a Judge; and whilst they were thus dispensing justice on all around, he should put his finger on the conduct of the Chief Justice, and say, in a country so excited and excitable, and under such peculiar circumstances, it did behove that Judge to be the first to set an example of prudent and cautious proceeding; and it was much against the rules of his profession to give vent to his opinion, He (Mr. Roebuck) therefore said, as far as regarded the proceedings of that court, that they deserved no censure. Well, what then was the result? He was told that eighteen people were executed. It was a great pity that such a measure should have been necessary. But, he asked, were they sitting there, not living amongst the people, more able to judge than those whom they knew to have been actuated by every possible good motive, and every desire not to inflict cruelty? He thought it would only be treating the Governor and those who advised him with ordinary justice and common fairness, to say that, under the circumstances, primâ facie they must have been right, because the mind revolted against the infliction of cruelty and a well-educated and cultivated mind especially; and it ought not to be imputed against them before it was proved. But he was told that there was more than cruelty—there was contempt for the religion and the prejudices of the people; that they shot a priest, and shot him in his full robes. Why, his full robes consisted of a yellow calico vest, and if that had been taken off he would have been naked. He supposed that Gentlemen who urged this argument supposed that the priest bad a dozen garments, like a Chinaman. But it was not so; if he had been taken out of his priestly robe, he would have been left in nature's garment. But he went a step further. He said, that when a priest had been caught in rebellion, and convicted of treason, he would have made a point of executing him as a priest. "It was thought a daring expression of Oliver Cromwell," said Horne Tooke, writing to Junius, "that if he found himself placed opposite the King in battle, he would discharge his piece into his bosom as soon as into any other man's;" and Home Tooke added, "Had I lived in those days I would not have waited for chance to give me an opportunity of doing my duty; I would have sought him through the ranks, and, without the least personal enmity, have discharged my piece into his bosom rather thani nto any other man's." That was a wise and proper sentiment, and one justified by his going out. And so if it were requisite to try a priest and prove him a traitor in a country like that, it was requisite to execute him as a priest, to make the people know that a priest could no more break the law than could a poor man. And if there were any peculiar badges of chieftainship, and he had caught a chief, he would have hung or shot him in his own peculiar dress, in order to show the people that the power which he wielded would not be stemmed by either priest or layman; that England had dominion, and would maintain it. Justice in a case such as that held the sword, but she had her eyes unbandaged. To talk in a case like this of offending the prejudices of the people by executing him as a priest, was to show that we desired dominion over a people where we should not be, but were too cowardly to exercise the only proper means by which to maintain it. If we went to Ceylon at all, and were to maintain our dominion, let us do so openly; and let us justify our conduct by those means which we have at hand, and by the exercise of those rules of policy which common sense dictates. Our dominion, as he had already said, was a great evil to the headmen and the priests of the country, who were the real disturbers of the peace. Good policy, therefore, compelled us, if we desired to put down that feeling, and to deprive these orders of all that made them formidable, to make the great mass of the people aware that the priests and headmen were in nowise shielded by their religion or their chieftainship. We had invaded the land and taken away their property, and it behoved us, therefore, also to take away the prestige of their religion. Was, then, the course which was taken prudent? Why, if he judged of our conduct in former times; if he applied the rules by which we begun, and then looked at the result, surely the execution of eighteen persons proved to have been guilty of treason was not anything like the cruelty of a war that had lasted for years. Upon those who supported this Motion lay the onus of proving that—there being an insurrection, large gatherings of people coming into town, plundering and destroying great buildings in that town, and thus proving that they had the power and the desire to overthrow the Government—what was done was not necessary, that it did not effect its purpose, and that it was a crime. He contended that, under these circumstances, the executing of eighteen people was a most merciful proceeding. He now came to the next point, the question whether the noble Lord had continued martial law too long. What was done under martial law was done for a specific end—security. Now, security could not be insured until the King was seized. It had been said that he was not King at all. Why, he was crowned. The people were made to suppose that he was, he might almost say, their anointed King; he was dressed in royal robes; with all the importance, therefore, that might attach to robes; and although he was a pretender, he was still, to all intents and purposes, to those who set him up, a King. For purposes of policy, it was necessary to catch that King. He was told—and he did not know how it was to be disproved—that by the power conferred upon the Government, by the enforcement of military law, they were able to follow and capture him. They did so; and so soon as his capture was made, and the danger had thereby disappeared, on the 10th of October martial law ceased. Then he saw no fault as regarded the length of time to which this extraordinary power extended. But it was said that circumstances of a very peculiar nature interfered, and that Lord Torrington did not put an end to martial law until the Chief Justice had told him that, in his opinion, it had remained long enough in force. Now, he did not at all find fault with the Chief Justice for having given that advice to the Governor; he thought it was wise and proper advice for a functionary in his position to give; and, what was more, it was given in a proper way. It would, no doubt, have been better had he gone personally to Lord Torrington and told him so. But it was given with precaution; it was not made public; there was no courting popularity in doing so. The Chief Justice gave the advice that the head of the law might well give to the head of the executive; and the head of the executive did what he ought to have done under the circumstances. The danger being over, and the head of the law giving him this advice, he took it and acted upon it; and now, because he had acted upon it, he was accused of having continued martial law too long. Why, until that moment, all the circumstances had not occurred which he thought requisite to ensure peace. When all those circumstances had occurred, and the strong opinion of the Chief Justice was given, the chief of the executive of the country at once and gladly acceded to it, and immediately issued a proclamation by which martial law was ended. He did not see a single thing in these blue books, except some often-formed opinions, which at all impugned the conduct of Lord Torrington; though he could see what sort of motives were working against him the moment it was found in that small wasp's nest of Ceylon, that there was a place—London—a sort of Dionysius's ear, or one like the lion's mouth at Venice, where it was only necessary to put in an accusation to secure the condemnation of the accused. Why, was there ever such a scene exhibited? It seemed as if people were fishing for accusations; as if the Committee thought they had a roving or fishing commission to find out accusations, and to concoct some charge against the Governor. They did not confine themselves to the charge upon which the Committee was granted, but went hunting out, and pushing here and there to find this letter to charge against him, and that small plot to impute to him; and the House had now the result in these three blue books, which would task the patience of those Members who tried to wade through them, and would convince the public that if all that was required to prove Lord Torrington guilty, Lord Torrington must be innocent. When Lord Eldon, then Sir John Scott, as Attorney General, made a nine hours' speech against Hardy, "What, nine hours to prove a man guilty of high treason!" was the universal outcry of the people of England in 1793. And so, when they saw that it required three monstrous tomes to prove Lord Torrington guilty of cruelty in Ceylon, they would say, "Why, this very fact itself proves the emptiness of your accusation." He had now done with his defence. He would not mix up any personal matters with it; but he could not help saying that this attempt to condemn Lord Torrington reminded him of the romance by the sarcastic Frenchman, Voltaire, who, writing with a pen bitter as the poisoned arrow's point, described his hero, when in England, witnessing a rather portly gentleman brought out on a three-decker to submit to death. "How is it," said the hero, "that this has happened?" The answer, thereupon, was, "Oh, he is an admiral, and in this country they shoot an admiral, pour encourager les autres." He would point the moral by saying that if they wore thus to accuse and thus to condemn those men whom they sent out in the difficult positions of colonial governors, to maintain a dominion by force over a large and uncertain and exceedingly suspicious people, they might depend upon it that our dominion, more especially in India, where firmness, vigour, and policy were required, would some day slip through our fingers, and we should have to lament that we did not maintain fairly and honestly the character of a well-intentioned Governor, against whom malice alone had furnished those formidable weapons—the blue books.

MR. HUME

said, his hon. and learned Friend who last addressed the House—as also those hon. Gentlemen who agreed with him—had built up a fabric of their own, which could not be said to exist on any evidence that had been laid before the Committee. If they were to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) that the people of Ceylon were to be governed without regard to constitutional rights, then it was easy to conceive that Ceylon was no colony but a possession, about the constitutional rights of which it was a mockery to speak. He differed altogether with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and begged to tell him that, though England conquered that country, she established certain rights with the people, and that having given that country a form of government, they pledged themselves to govern the country according to the rules therein laid down. He contended that if it should appear that Lord Torring-ton had acted contrary to the rules which had been laid down for the government of the island, to the dictates of humanity, and to the best interests both of this country and of Ceylon, he would have violated constitutional rights, which the inhabitants of that island had a right to enjoy. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) that the choice of Lord Torrington as Governor of Ceylon was not what it should have been. From his want of experience he no doubt fell into grievous errors; and he would ask what could we expect from the governors of other colonial possessions, if the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was adhered to, that they, without reason and without ground, should be allowed to set aside the laws existing in the possessions which they governed, and to make their own will the rule of government? At the end of 1848, when accounts of executions and disturbances reached this country, he (Mr. Hume) felt it his duty to inquire in that House whether there were accounts of the causes of these insurrections and executions in Ceylon, and, at the same time, expressed a hope that the accounts were exaggerated. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies treated the matter as ended, and of no importance. The Government knew well that complaints were in preparation, and consequently prepared their blue books. What were the circumstances connected with this inquiry? He admitted that it had been carried on to a most unusual and improper length; but that was the fault of the Government, who had at first refused to listen to the complaints of the inhabitants of Ceylon, and had afterwards thwarted the inquiries before the Committee by every means in their power. He had been a member of many Committees, but he never was on a Committee where the Government party took such means to prevent the elucidation of truth. His hon. and learned Friend had alluded to the three volumes of evidence which were published on this subject, and argued that their dimensions alone were sufficient to acquit Lord Torrington; but it would be impossible for hon. Gentlemen to arrive at a correct decision, if they did not carefully study those volumes. Those blue books contained five articles from the evidence of Sir Emerson Tennent, which were given with the view of vindicating Lord Torrington, although Sir Emerson Tennent was himself an accused party. When Lord Torrington received the evidence taken before the Committee in 1849, he took high offence at the conduct of Mr. Wodehouse, a witness called by Her Majesty's Government, and one who had given his evidence in a very fair manner; for while he answered fairly and fully the questions put to him by the Committee, he did not volunteer any statements, although he was cognisant of many facts that came out afterwards. He thought that this gentleman had been most cruelly used, and that he deserved much better treatment than he had received from Lord Torrington and Sir Emerson Tennent. When the noble Lord at the head of the Government refused at the end of the Session of 1849 to terminate the sittings of the Committee, and to send out a Commission to Ceylon to conduct further inquiries on the spot, but moved the recommitment of their report, he (Mr. Hume) told him that that would give Lord Torrington an opportunity of concocting evidence in defence of his measures which ought to be decided by the documents and evidence that were then before the Committee. Was he mistaken in this? No. Sir Emerson Tennent had himself given complete proof of the fact; and he mentioned this as an act of justice to Mr. Wodehouse, who had been cruelly malismed throughout the affair—that the first person who produced private letters, or at least who necessitated their production, was not Mr. Wodehouse, but was Sir Emerson Tennent, who had concocted a series of evidence to be given by the different Members of the Government, in order to make it believed by the Committee that if Lord Torrington had acted wrong he had done so at all events under the advice and counsel of Mr. Wodehouse; and all the reason he assigned for that was, that as Lord Torrington repealed two taxes under the advice of Mr. Wodehouse, he presumed it was under his advice and counsel that he took the measures which led to this unfortunate result. Now, that Sir Emerson Tennent concocted the evidence, was clear from his own evidence. In answer to Question 2,920, in the Minutes of Evidence of 1850, Sir Emerson Tennent says— I may further state that I was in communication, not only with Mr. Staples, but with every officer in the Kandyan country, with the same view, namely, to obtain from them an expression of what their opinion was at the time, and how it has been confirmed by subsequent experience, as regards the danger which existed in 1848, and the success of the measures of the Government in averting that danger. He also admitted that he made the same suggestion to other gentlemen, as to the reports that they should make to the Government, by circulars, which he sent to them, and that he was moreover "in personal communication with many of these gentlemen." Further on he says— I have no hesitation in stating that these officers communicated with me before finally sending in their answers, what the tenor of those answers would be, and pretty much what the contents of them would be. It was clear, therefore, that the documents, subsequent to the Committee of 1849, were prepared at the bidding and request of Lord Torrington and Sir Emerson Tennent, and against these documents, therefore, he warned the House to be on their guard. Now, what were the facts before them? Was there a rebellion or not? He said there was no rebellion. All the evidence before them said there was no rebellion. But, before going farther, he must clear up a point which had been too confidently alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Murphy). They had been told that Lord Torrington had reformed the fiscal arrangements of the colony; that when he arrived in Ceylon he found the finances in the utmost disorder; and that by a wise and judicious economy he had left them in a state of improvement. Now he did not quarrel with some of the acts of Lord Torrington's fiscal policy; but it was important to show that it was his own act which had raised the whole disturbance—rebellion it was ridiculous to call it. In the end of 1847 and the beginning of 1848, Lord Torrington laid on seven new taxes, including taxes on dogs, on guns, on roads, & c., and those taxes excited great alarm and misapprehension in the public mind. The discontent was a growing discontent. His hon. and learned Friend said there was a sudden outbreak. He (Mr. Hume) denied that to be correct. On the contrary, it was on record that there was gradual alarm and discontent. It began in May, and went on in June, at which time a regiment was ordered to proceed from Colombo in consequence of the discontent which had arisen at the new taxes. The people went in numbers to remonstrate against the taxes. Mr. Wodehouse stated that they applied to him, and that he told them the Colonial Secretary would soon be there, and that he would hear their grievances. Sir Emerson Tennent attended a meeting, and in a letter which he wrote to the Governor, he says, "that there was great noise and discontent manifest, and that the new taxes were the ground of complaint." It was impossible to reconcile the evidence of Lord Torrington himself with the idea of a sudden outbreak. Soon after the new taxes were imposed, 3,000 men without arms—he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would reconcile this with his own statement that there were 60,000 armed men in insurrection—met to complain of the effect of these taxes. Did the influence of the priests appear in all this? The hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Roebuck's) idea with regard to their influence was purely imaginary. He compared this disturbance with the insurrection of 1818; but the House ought to recollect that since that insurrection more than thirty years had passed away—the influence of the priests had become perfectly harmless, and they were no longer likely to be the cause of any disturbance. He admitted that the imposition of those taxes did serve as a handle to the discontented, because they held out to the people at large that these were only preliminary to other more stringent taxes. But he asked if these things were so, were they not warranted in holding Lord Torrington as the cause of the outbreak and the disturbance? His hon. and learned Friend had spoken rightly of the opinions of Mr. Justice Buller, in whom great confidence appeared to be placed, and therefore it would be permitted him to observe, that Mr. Justice Buller stated that the deputation met to complain of the road and the dog and the other taxes, and that Mr. Turner had promised them that they should not be taxed any more. No doubt some of those who were discontented were ready to avail themselves of the new taxes to excite the people; and it was not unnatural that when these taxes were laid on, as Lord Torrington laid them on, the people should be ready to listen to such persons. But what did the Governor himself say of these taxes? He says— I am bound to confess that difficulties have been experienced in carrying out its (the gun tax) details, which can be thoroughly appreciated only by those resident on the spot, and which have arisen in a great degree out of native habits and customs." "I candidly admit that the dog ordinance has not been successful, and I have recommended the repeal of the ordinance." "The annual shop license has been the cause of much complaint, and frequent petitions have been presented against it." "An important departure from the principle of the original Bill (the Road Ordinance) to prevent the Government being compelled to force the Buddhist priests to violate their religious vows. He was sorry to find the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who had fought by his side in former days when they contended against the oppression of the colonies by their Governors, now unexpectedly taking the part of an out-and-out Tory. He would now proceed to show the nature of the disturbances. ["Oh, oh!"] Surely hon. Gentlemen who had listened patiently to the purely imaginary case made out by the lion, and learned Members for Cork and Sheffield, ought not to endeavour to prevent him from showing what really took place. But his hon. and learned Friend denied that the natives were entitled to any constitutional rights, which proved, at least, that he did not care much for the welfare of the people committed to our charge. He (Mr. Hume) had a petition signed by the European inhabitants of Ceylon, stating that formerly only such taxes were levied upon them as they were able to pay, and praying to be relieved from the new taxes. Was not that a warning to which a man of common sense would have listened? There was another petition, signed by 550 Buddhist priests, complaining of the operation of the road ordinance. The House ought to know that the Buddhist priests could not possess property. They depended for support on the alms of their flocks. By the law of Kandy no priest could be appointed to the head of a temple but with the sanction of the King of Kandy: but Lord Torrington, acting under the advice of Earl Grey, had endeavoured to transfer that sanction from the King to the Governor, and had refused to give the priests their ordinary warrants for collecting the rents of the lands belonging to the temple; and the consequence was, that the men who cultivated those lands would not pay their rent, and the priests were reduced to a state of starvation. Being thus without money, the road ordinance required that they should give six days' work on the roads in the year, in lieu of a contribution in money; and that they regarded as an intolerable degradation. There was also an address from the Chamber of Commerce in the blue hook, setting forth that the irritation in the colony was owing in a great measure to the levying of new taxes, and to the mode of collecting them. That petition was signed by 2,210 inhabitants, and they concluded by stating that the colony was in a deplorable condition. After what he had stated, be submitted a case was never made out on stronger evidence than that furnished by the blue books relating to these transactions. Sir Herbert Maddock, who was produced before the Committee as a witness on the part of the Government, was obliged to admit that it was only in a portion of the territory that the disturbances had taken place. Mr. Wodehouse also stated that those disturbances were confined to Matelle and the Centre Province, and that the discontented amounted only to a fifth of the population. What was the opinions of a public officer on the spot? Mr. Buller, in a letter dated the 27th of July, only two days before the proclamation of martial law, said that Mr. Waring had written to say the people had assembled in great numbers at Dambool; but that he (Mr. Buller) fancied from the reports he had heard that their real number was about seventy. On the evening of the same day Mr. Buller wrote again as follows:— July 27, 1848. My dear Bernard—In writing yesterday evening I forgot to mention that I did so at Locko Banda's express desire, as otherwise I should not have thought it worth while troubling you with it, for my own impression is, that it is nothing more than a few villagers, with a small crowd of about sixty fools, who might have collected; and, as far as I can learn, they take very good care not to commit any offence which would bring them under the law. I understand they are going on a pilgrimage to Anaradgapoora. I have not heard from Locko Banda yet, but expect a line to-night. If I do I will add in a P. S. P.S.—I enclose Locko Banda's report. It is such as I expected; the thousands are reduced to hundreds; and before to-morrow they will be reduced, I dare say, to decimals—perhaps to the seventy I fancied the real number.—Very truly yours, "C. R. BULLER. Note—Subsequent information has proved this to be correct, and that at this time only about seventy persons were collected at Dambool. Mr. Locko Banda, the officer charged with the public peace, wrote the following letter on the 25th of July:— Kandy, July 25, 1848. Dear Sir—Several reports were this morning sent to Kandy, both to me as well as the Government agent, stating that a great number of people are assembled with swords and firearms at Matelle, between Dambool and Nalande, for the purpose of creating alarm. That after some consultation with the Government agent and the district Judge just now, we have come to the resolution of keeping quite quiet about it, until they (the mob assembled) should commit some disturbance, so as to enable the authorities to bring them to justice. As I have already observed in my former correspondence, it is so now, my humble opinion, that one-half of these reports are unfounded: however, it would be advisable that we be always on the look-out, as I have reason to believe that some prisoners, who were either acquitted, or absconded from the public gaols, are, by joining with some low country Cingalese and desperate Kandyans, now disturbing the villagers.—I remain, & c. "D. L. BANDA. W. D. Bernard, Esq., Colombo. The truth was, that the dreadful outbreak which was to overturn the British Government was a mob consisting of a small number of disaffected individuals. Captain Lillie was despatched with a company of troops towards Matelle, to quell the disturbances, and on their way thither they met a crowd returning home. The commanding officer thereupon seized sixty of the ringleaders, the troops fired on the mob, and by Lord Torrington's account very nearly 200 persons were killed. That was on the evening of the 28th, and the morning of the 29th of July. There had been no evidence laid before the Committee to show on what grounds Lord Torrington had issued his proclamation. The Committee had asked for the authority on which he did so; but the Government had none, and they knew of none. Therefore it was that he (Mr. Hume) complained of the abuse of power on the part of Lord Torrington, inasmuch as that noble Lord had not assigned any grounds whatever for setting aside the law of the land. From the hour that proclamation of martial law was made, no man had raised his hand against the military power of the colony. There was a perfect subserviency to every order, and yet martial law was proclaimed at Colombo before Lord Torrington could have heard of the encounter between Captain Lillie and the mob. From the time of that encounter all resistance ceased; no more disturbance took place; and, therefore, to continue martial law under those circumstances was a gross violation of that discretion which was placed in the Governor of a colony. They had the opinion of Mr. Anstruther, who had fifteen years' experience of the people, that if a single corporal, with four men added to the civil power, had appeared, the people would have all dispersed. Every officer whom they had examined stated the same thing. He was afraid that his friends about him, than whom none could be found more alive or hostile to oppression, looked rather less at the inhumanity detailed, than the result of an independent vote. Sir Anthony Oliphant gave most important evidence. He stated, of his own knowledge, that it would have been only necessary for Mr. Anstruther to have appeared, and holding up his one arm, to have directed the people, in the name of the Government: "To your tents, O Israel" were the words he used, and that would have been sufficient to have induced them to retire. Mr. Colpepper, in his evidence, stated that the nature of the insurrection did not justify the measures used to repress it. Mr. Wodehouse, in his evidence, stated that he did not give his sanction to the proclamation of martial law. He was asked by Lord Torrington, "Have I the power as Governor to proclaim martial law?" Mr. Wodehouse replied, "If the necessity exists—if you have no other means of maintaining peace—you have." He answered— Very well. The general and I have settled that martial law is to be proclaimed, we have settled it at breakfast; we do not want your reasoning; sit down and draw up a proclamation. There were officers of the Government in the colony for twenty, thirty, and forty years who ought to have been consulted in all these affairs; but, by a strange oversight, not to say neglect, that apparent and most prudent course was omitted. Why was it that the proclamation was not, as in other cases, communicated through General Smelt to Colonel Drought? The Governor would not allow either General Smelt or any of his staff to go to the scene of action. Another remarkable fact was, that Colonel Braybrooke was kept entirely in the dark; he was even subjected to a severe reprimand for having dared to join the head-quarters. Thus was an expe- rienced officer, who had been in the rebellion of 1818, kept entirely in the background. The Committee had asked what instructions were given. None could be found. Captain Watson, on being asked under what instructions he acted, replied that he had no instructions whatever, except that he was directed to follow as far as possible the rules of war. The letter subsequently written by the Governor showed a marked desire for conviction. [Cries of "Divide!"] He begged to say that he had not half finished his speech. He must be allowed to state his case on behalf of the inhabitants of the colony. They had been told of the cruelties practised by the Austrians against the Hungarians. They were nothing to what had taken place at Ceylon. They were nothing to the irregularities which took place there, and which met the sanction even of the home authorities. Instead of having the evidence taken upon these courts-martial referred to another officer, Captain Watson was the man who confirmed the sentence, and he had delegated his powers to Captain Bird; and that gentleman, as the junior member of the court, found the individual guilty, sentenced him to death, and all without the intervention of Captain Watson. All this seemed to him to be carrying arbitrary power and cruelty to an excess not justified, much less to be endured, in a free country. What he complained of was the manner in which the Government had been committed to the hands of Captain Watson. If they had now in their hands the report of the Commission which sat in Ceylon, they would have a history of tyranny and oppression never equalled. He called on the Government to account for having sent the only copy they had of that evidence out of the country. It ought to have been in the hands of every Member in that House. He also complained that Her Majesty's Government should have given their sanction to all these monstrous proceedings without having one tittle of evidence before them as to whether these courts-martial were conducted after the proper manner. He wanted to know from the Government whether any copies of these proceedings had been transmitted to them before they gave them their approving fiat. Earl Grey was requested to attend before the Committee to show on what data the Government had assented to such atrocious proceedings; but he declined to attend, and he was the first Peer who had taken such a course. He believed that the noble Earl was afraid to face the Committee, and that he did not dare to attempt to justify the grounds on which he had committed Her Majesty's name and approbation to certain acts of the Government of Ceylon. He (Mr. Hume) had been asked what he wanted to prove through Earl Grey? It was enough to answer that he had wanted to see copies of the proceedings before the courts-martial. No man in England had ever seen them; and the fact was that the noble Lord (Earl Grey) had given his sanction to the murders in Ceylon, without having one tittle of evidence before him that the trials had been conducted with any reference whatever to the rules with which humanity insisted on hedging round those whose lives were placed at the mercy of a military tribunal. The Committee decided on summoning Earl Grey; and the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie), as the Chairman, wrote to his Lordship, requesting to know if he would have any objection to being examined before the Committee. Earl Grey declined, on the ground that he was not in possession of any particular evidence which the Committee could want; but at the same time stated that if the Committee would be good enough to point out what facts they required, he would consider further. The Committee then deliberated, and he (Mr. Hume) detailed the facts and documents of which he thought the Committee ought to be in possession. But it appeared that Earl Grey was in the greatest ignorance in respect to these particular matters, as to which he ought to have been perfectly informed before he decided on sanctioning the proceedings of Lord Torrington's Government. Some of the necessary documents were sent for to Ceylon; and the documents relating to the courts-martial were not forthcoming until fourteen months after the occurrence of the events to which they related. He therefore considered that the House was perfectly in a position to affirm the whole of the propositions of his hon. Friend. He maintained that they had received positive proof that the whole of the disturbances in Ceylon were occasioned by the injudicious conduct and behaviour of Lord Torrington himself. It was clear from the despatches, as well as from the blue books, that the disturbance was trifling, and could have been put down by the civil power, aided by the military, instead of being put down, as they were, with great slaughter on the mornings of the 29th and 31st July—the only two occasions on which the military acted—by the military alone. Such proceedings were discreditable to the country; and the conduct of the Government in assenting to those proceedings deserved the censure of the House, and of every man who wished to see good government exercised in the distant provinces of the empire. He denied that they would shake the confidence in the Governors of distant provinces by censuring Lord Torrington. They had proved Lord Torrington had acted wrong, and his own evidence condemned him. Although it was said petitions could be got up in Ceylon, and that one public officer could obtain 30,000 signatures, a petition signed by 37,000 natives and Europeans, representing the faults of the Government, was an extraordinary fact. It might be easy to get up petitions in favour of the Government, but petitions complaining of the acts of the Government were not numerously signed unless there were striking grievances to be redressed. He (Mr. Hume) thought that Mr. Selby's character had been unjustly traduced, and that instead of its being a matter of blame, it redounded to the honour of Mr. Selby that he should have felt for the cruelties practised in the country of his adoption, contrary to all law, and that he should have given information on the subject. After the evidence in the blue books, after these atrocious proceedings, if the House did not agree to the Resolutions of his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie), what security would there be against any Governor, in any place, acting in any way he thought fit, setting aside all law, and carrying out the law of his own will, which they all know was the definition of martial law? They could not bring back those who were executed; but he trusted, if any yet survived of those who had been transported, they would be recalled. If the Committee could have obtained the correspondence between Colonel Drought and Lord Torrington, they would have been enabled to arrive at the truth. Not a single letter had been produced. He believed they had been burnt in order to evade this inquiry. It was not possible, with daily communications going on between the Government and the officials during the existence of martial law, that no written documents should have existed. He had the strongest suspicion that suppression had taken place to a most extraordinary extent. If this was not a case which called for condemna- tion, he was not aware that any case could he made out. Lord Torrington might have been tried for murder if, as it was affirmed, the whole of the proceedings were illegal; but to prevent the searching inquiry which would have arisen, martial law was kept up until a Bill of Indemnity was passed, after which no prosecution could be instituted against those who acted under martial law. The people of Ceylon had been granted civil rights, which ought not to have been taken away; and therefore martial law, beyond the absolute necessity, was both unjustifiable and unlawful. Martial law had been maintained long after there was any pretence for saying it was necessary, and the people of Ceylon would have a right to complain, if the House did not support those rights by affirming the Resolutions of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire.

SIR JAMES HOGG

moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. HAWES

said, he wished to ask the indulgence of the House on personal grounds, in consequence of a charge which had been made against him by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie), to the effect that he had been guilty of the falsification of documents which he had laid on the table of that House. If he had risen when the hon. Member had hazarded that charge against him, he could not have given it that refutation which he was now enabled to pronounce. The hon. Member had charged him—

MR. BAILLIE

No; he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he had not referred to him in particular. He had referred to some documents which the Colonial Office had presented to the House; but whether they were made up by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office (Earl Grey), or by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes), or by one of the clerks of the Office, he had no means of knowing.

MR. HAWES

The hon. Gentleman now said, that he charged the Colonial Offiec, or some person in that department—he stood there as the representative of the Colonial department, and he would refute the charge. The hon. Member had referred to a paper comprised in the blue books on this subject, and containing the appendix, and the index of documents relating to the case; and he had stated, that it was represented that the Deputy Queen's Advocate, Mr. Stewart, had attended fourteen courts-martial, whereas the fact was, that he had only appeared before four. Now he (Mr. Hawes) admitted that he only attended four; but since the hon. Member made—so groundlessly made—that charge, he had obtained the original document—a document which had not been put in by himself (Mr. Hawes), nor had it come from the Colonial Office, but it had been placed before the Committee by the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon, and for which neither himself nor the Colonial Office was in any way responsible. He was thus enabled to show the House the nature of the error that had been made, and also to point out the parties that made it. That document showed that Mr. Stewart appear- ed before four courts-martial only; and the repetition of the word "ditto," after the, name, made it appear as if he had attended fourteen courts-martial; but it was clearly the error of the printer of the House of Commons. ["Hear!" and "Oh!"] Why, what farther explanation could he offer? Here was the original document: he held it in his hand; and it would be as unjust for him (Mr. Hawes) to charge the hon. Member, as the Chairman of the Committee, with a falsification of it, as for the hon. Member to bring such a charge against himself. He had succeeded, through the zeal of a gentleman connected with the Colonial Office, in obtaining the original document. That document was itself correct; and the error that had been now referred to was in the blue book, and had arisen with the printer of the House. The hon. Member, therefore, should not have hazarded the charge he had done; at all events, he ought to have given him notice of his intention to do so; and if he had done him that act of courtesy and justice, they might have investigated the matter together, and have together discovered the mistake which had been made the subject of so groundless an attack.

MR. DISRAELI

did not rise to address the House on the subject of this charge. It was always satisfactory whenever any Public Office against which a charge was brought was enabled to vindicate itself. With reference, however, to the merits of the main question before the House that evening, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman who had brought it forward, was justified in the statement he had laid before the House; and he (Mr. Disraeli) was now desirous of asking the Government when they intended to resume the discussion.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

would take the adjourned debate on Thursday.

MR. BAILLIE

said, that the statement, in reply to the charge he had made, might be satisfactory so far as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes was concerned; but it ought to be remembered that the paper in which this mistake appeared had been published for two months—and that it. must have been seen by all the officers of the Colonial department. He could only say that the statement of the hon. Gentleman had vindicated what he (Mr. Baillie) had said in the first instance.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) had stated that he had a direct charge either against his (Sir George Grey's) hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes), or against the head of that department, or some of the subordinates; and then he said, what a department this must be to allow the falsification of documents by an officer! The hon. Gentleman's attention had clearly been long directed to this error in the printed papers. Yet he did not take the trouble to inquire, where he might have obtained information, but he reserved it in order to make an impression upon the House. He blushed for the House of Commons, that it had a Member who would attempt, after the satisfactory explanation that had been given to justify the statement that he had previously made.

MR. BAILLIE

Sir, I rise at once to ask you whether you consider the right hon. Gentleman in order in what he has now said? If you do, Sir, all I can say is that I don't; but if he be in order here, he is not elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER

was understood to say that he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would explain that he had not used the words in any offensive sense.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he had no desire to say any thing personally offensive to the hon. Member, and would not repeat the word "blush;" but he must repeat his regret that an hon. Member of that House should make a charge against another of falsifying a public document without first making the inquiry he might and ought to have done; and that he should, after the matter had been proved to have been a mistake, come forward and vindicate his statement.

MR. BAILLIE

said, that he must have been misunderstood. He said that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) had vindicated his own character and the character of the Office; but he (Mr. Baillie) said that he was justified in what he had said; for, as the documents had been printed two months, it was to be presumed that they were correct.

MR. HAWES

said, that the paper had never been within the Colonial Office—it had been transferred by the Committee to the body of the House. The matter was an error of the printer of the House of Commons, in the archives of which the original paper which was first before the Committee had been found, and found to be correct.

MR. MILES

considered that the Colonial Office was bound by the acts of its servants, and here had they allowed a paper, containing what was false, to lie before the House for two months without any attempt at correction. He wondered much to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary take up the cause of the Colonial Office with an acerbity of manner so unlike his usual demeanour in that House. He (Mr. Miles) would, however, state broadly that, in his opinion, this document being before the House, the hon. Member for Inverness-shire had a perfect right to use it in his speech against the Colonial Government.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down must have had his mind so intently fixed upon the subject of debate, that he could not attend to the explanations which had passed recently on this particular point. The hon. Member said the whole matter was chargeable upon the Colonial Office, whereas the Colonial Office happened to be the department entirely blameless in the matter. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had satisfactorily explained that the Colonial Office was quite blameless in the matter, and had had nothing to do with it from the beginning to the end. An error had been committed, which the hon. Member for Inverness-shire had, he presumed, only perceived that morning, and which might have misled him, were it not that he had himself been Chairman of the Committee. The error arose from this fact, that there was a difference between the written paper which was given to the Committee, and the printed copy of the same document as inserted in the Minutes. If the written paper had been given in by the Colonial Office, even in that case the Colonial Office would have come off blamelessly, for the written paper was correct. But the paper, in point of fact, was not given in from the Colonial Office, and, therefore, if it had been wrong, the Colonial Office would not have been to blame. Both the hon. and Under Secretary for the Colonies, and the Secretary for Ceylon, were in the right, inasmuch as the written statement was strictly accurate; but the printer of the House of Commons, in printing the immense mass of documents which had emanated from the Committee, had unfortunately committed an error, by putting something into the printed return which was not to be found in the manuscript. It was clear that no responsibility rested upon the Colonial Office; but if blame attached in any quarter—if there was any body to whom responsibility might not unnaturally be imputed, it was perhaps to the Chairman of the Committee. However, he acquitted the hon. Member for Inverness-shire. He knew that it was not to be expected that the hon. Member should go through such an immense mass of documents to test the accuracy of every return; but when the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies found that there was a difference between a certain return and a statement which had been made with respect to that return, surely it was not too much to expect that the hon. Under Secretary's candour might have suggested to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) the propriety of making some inquiry as to where the mistake lay before he made it the subject of a grave charge; and to this course he might have been the more disposed, because, as Chairman of the Committee, he must have known that the return had not emanated from the Colonial Office.

LORD CLAUDE HAMILTON

felt assured that, if the mild, gentle, and conciliatory spirit which the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had on this as on all other occasions exhibited, had been manifested by all his Colleagues, the unfortunate occurrence which had occupied so much of the time of the House would not have taken place. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Surely the hon. Members who now interrupted him with cries of "Oh!" could not have failed to observe how marked was the contrast between the mild and gentle manner of the noble Lord, who had thrown oil on the troubled waters, and the irritating, angry, vehement, and personal observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. Surely there was no man of candour who would venture to assert that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and those which had fallen from the noble Lord, were couched in the same spirit, or proceeded from similar casts of mind. The hon. Under Secretary of the Colonies was also, no doubt, exceedingly sensitive upon this question; but surely he might have some respect for the feelings of others, whose convictions, though differing from his own, were equally sincere, and who had encountered some trials in the course of this painful inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had used language which, upon reflection, he would no doubt himself disapprove of.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

would ask the House to remember when the noble Lord (Lord Claude Hamilton) charged that (the Ministerial) side of the House with having exhibited undue warmth, how that warmth of feeling arose. A charge was I deliberately made by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire against the Colonial Office, represented by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes)—of having deliberately and wilfully falsified documents. That was no light charge—it was one which affected the character of men of honour, as well as public men and servants of the Crown. His hon. Friend had received no notice of this charge; hut he thought that in common fairness as between man and man, not to say as between gentleman and gentleman, when a man's character was about to be assailed, some intimation would be given to him; for, mark the position in which his hon. Friend would have been placed if he had not, by singular good fortune and diligence, been able to produce the document before the House that evening. It would have gone forth to the country on the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie), as verified by the printed document, that there had been that falsification of the document. That was a state of things calculated to excite warmth in any man's mind. It turned out to he an error of the printer; and he should have expected the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, on hearing that, would rise at once and express his regret, his deep his profound regret, a having, unwittingly and unconsciously, been the means of attacking the personal honour of his (the Attorney General's) hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes); and when the House heard the retractation and the singular hesitation and want of candour and frankness on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire, could any one wonder at the warm expression of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, looking at the circumstances of the charge, the explanation afforded, and the hesitation of the hon. Gentleman? But then up jumped the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles), and said it was the business of the Colonial Office to watch every document that passed through that Office—that was to say, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes) was to be held responsible for every "ditto" which the printer, by mistake, inserted throughout the mass of documents then before the House. And then up got the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claude Hamilton), and complained of the warmth of that side of the House. The noble Lord ought to he the last man in that House to make such a complaint. The warmth had arisen under the circumstances he had stated, and it was a warmth upon which no man need be ashamed.

MR. HERRIES

said, that after the display of warmth on both sides, he expected that so grave a personage as the hon. and learned Attorney General would have said something to assuage it, rather than vindicate all the warmth that had been exhibited on his own side. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of notice; but no person in that House aware of the character of their proceedings would suppose it was incumbent on his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie) to have given notice that in the course of the debate he might possibly introduce a charge of this nature. He lamented, however, that his hon. Friend was mistaken, as indeed he was mistaken, in the statement he had made. Undoubtedly there rested no blame on the Colonial Office. If any, it was in the corrector of the press. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had deviated from his usual course of forbearance, and to that he attributed much of the warmth that had been displayed.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that no charge was made against the Colonial Office, that that charge was without foundation, and that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) was wholly mistaken in preferring that charge, he had no hesitation whatever in expressing his regret at having used an expression that could be in the least degree personally offensive to the hon. Gentleman.

Debate adjourned till Thursday.