PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
1
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON,
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
52
Mr. Selby had more than once pressed upon Lord Torrington to discontinue martial law, and this may account for the omission to consult Mr. Selby. The truth is, Lord Torrington should have said that the proclamation was issued with the ad- vice of Sir H. Maddock, his confidential adviser.
On the 12th April, 1850, Sir E. Tennent says: the "proclamation was not of itself any declaration tantamount to confiscation, and it was not intended as such;" that Lord Torrington in his despatch shows that he was well aware that confiscation without a previous conviction was illegal; and that he himself also was aware of this. But it must be remembered that the despatch is of the date of the 14th September, and in the interval between the proclamation and despatch, Lord Torrington had seen Mr. Selby's letter to Mr. Bernard which had caused Lord Torrington "much anxious considera- tion;" and the passage in the despatch adverted to by Sir E. Tennent is founded upon a passage in Mr. Selby's letter. One part of Mr. Selby's note advises the discontinuance of martial law; but this part could not have been the cause of Lord Torring- ton's anxiety, for Mr. Selby's views on this subject were well known to Lord Torrington. Lord Tor- rington had also had a personal consultation with Mr. Selby on the subject. Sir E. Tennent, how-
ever,
will not concede that Mr. Selby had not advised the proclamation.
3079. Is it not usual for the Queen's Advocate to draw up proclamations?--I think it is usual, but it is not neces- sarily a part of his duty,
3080. Why was not the Queen's Advocate consulted upon that occasion ?—The Queen's Advocate was practi- cally consulted upon that occasion; the Queen's Advocate was there when instructions were given to me by Lord Torrington; and when I prepared the proclamation the Queen's Advocate was in the room. When I brought in the draft of the proclamation, I read it over in his hearing to Lord Torrington. The Queen's Advocate was there in his judicial capacity of law adviser to the Crown, and as
a member of the Executive Council; and I distinctly in- ferred from the absence of all exception on his part, that he approved of that proclamation; and I was surprised, at a subsequent period, when I ascertained that he enter- tained a different opinion.
One other subject, which was brought before the Executive Council, and is spoken to by Sir E. Ten- nent in his examination of the 15th April, 1850,
Papers, 1849. Page 544. Evidence, 1849.-Selby. 1443, 1449.
Evidence, 1850.---Oliphant. 7087, 7090.
Evidence, 1850.
3075, 3076.
3084.
*
Evidence, 1850.
53
may be mentioned here. The Maha Nileme had been committed for treason.
2779. Can you state to the Committee why the trial was not proceeded with?-The Queen's Advocate ex- pressed to the Government a strong opinion that the tes- timony of the witnesses against the Maha Nileme was not to be believed; that they were persons of doubtful vern- city; and that under those circumstances he was uncertain of obtaining a conviction. He recommended that the Maha Nileme should not be put upon his trial in the face of such a chance.
2780. Did that case come under the consideration of the Executive Council?—It did. The depositions taken against the Maha Nileme were laid before the Executive Council, together with that opinion of the Queen's Advo- cate; and upon that the members of the Council recorded their opinion that, although they entertained no moral doubt of the guilt of the Maha Nileme, in the face of such a declaration from the Queen's Advocate as to the uncertainty of securing a conviction, they could not re- commend that he should be brought to trial.
Mr. Selby's recollection differs from that of Sir E. Tennent.
4407. Chairman. It has been stated in answer to Question 2780, that the members of the Executive Council recorded their opinion to the effect that they entertained no moral doubt of the guilt of the Maha Nileme; was any such opinion recorded, as far as you recollect?—Certainly not; on the contrary, I have a distinct recollection that one of the oldest members of the civil service who was in the Council, Mr. Templer, and who had been a magistrate for a long time in Ceylon, stated in the Council that he concurred with Mr. Stewart and myself in thinking that the evidence was not trustworthy.
4408. Sir J. Walmsley.—Did he state that openly ?—- Yes, he stated it openly. I would beg to add, that if the members of the Executive Council recorded any such an opinion, it will be found in the minutes of the Executive Council; a reference to those minutes will show whether such an opinion was recorded or not.
4409. Chairman.-Did each of the members of the Council give in their opinion?-I gave in my opinion, because I wrote my report upon the case, for the purpose
of showing what were the points to be considered, and submitted it to the Council, and I remember seeing
an in- dorsement upon the paper in the handwriting of Sir Emerson Tennent, of his opinion; I cannot from memory say what it was, and I would rather that Sir Emerson Tennent should give his own version of it, but the impres- sion upon my mind is, that even he did not express any strong opinion of the guilt of Maha Nileme; but, however, he can answer for himself. As regards the other members of the Council I do not believe that they recorded any opinion at all.
4418. Sir Emerson Tennent states that the opinion of