PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
سائنس
وا
Reference :-
C.O. 882
1
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
64
have another letter in which he says he wishes he had known me better sooner; all of which point to the fact that I had not been in that position of confidential adviser of Lord Torrington throughout these transactions, which is supposed in those answers, or that I had betrayed him in what I had stated." It was your impression from the answers which are referred to in Question 4598, that Lord Torrington meant to convey an authority to Sir Emerson Tennent to declare that he was in the habit of confidential intimacy with you, and that you were his adviser; you thought that that was the purport of those answers?—I thought so certainly; and that I had continued so; that I had been so throughout. Sir Emerson Tennent alludes to various measures which were going on in the early part of Lord Torrington's government, and says, “I am authorized by Lord Torrington to state that such was his practice; and that in regard to all questions of policy connected with the Government, Mr. Wodehouse was made aware of his, Lord Torrington's, intentions, and was consulted by him, and gave him his advice and opinion.” “Are you aware of any occasion whatever during the whole period that the policy of Lord Torrington was under discussion, in which Mr. Wodehouse, upon being consulted by Lord Torrington, expressed his dissent in any way from the policy which had been adopted ?" "If the policy referred to in the question applies to the general commercial measures of the Government, the abolition of the export duties, and the enactment of the gun tax, the road ordi- nance and others, and if it alludes to the policy of Lord Torrington for the suppression of the rebellion, I am authorized by Lord Torrington to state that no such dissent was ever expressed by Mr. Wodehouse; and up to the period of Mr. Wodehouse taking leave of the Island of Ceylon, Lord Torrington laboured under the full impres- sion, from his communications with him," and so on.
4614. Your impression was, that this answer was in- tended to show that you had been the confidential adviser of Lord Torrington ?-Certainly.
4615. You meant to refer to the letters alluded to in Question 4601, as proving that in Lord Torrington's opinion you were not in the situation of such a confidential adviser That at one time I had not been so. The answer to Question 4601 contains my statement of my position with Lord Torrington up to the time I came
away.
4616. The letters, you thought, contradicted the assump- tion in the answer of Sir Emerson Tennent, that you had been the confidential adviser of Lord Torrington ?—-- Throughout.
4617. The Committee understand fron. your answer to a previous question to-day, that you cannot consent to forego the advantage of a reference to those two letters ?— Of alluding to their existence.
4618. Mr. Howes.-Were they private letters ?— Strictly so.
4619. Do they relate to any other subjects wholly irre- levant and distinct from the point which you are most anxious to elucidate?—Yes, they do, certainly.
Evidence, May 30, 1850.
Evidence, May 30, 1850.
65
4620. Sir R. Peel.-You state that you consider there are portions of those letters which are totally irrelevant to the matter you have referred to ?-Yes, portions of them, certainly.
4621. Are they of such a nature that they could with propriety be mentioned to the Committee or to the Chair- man of the Committee, for the purpose of omitting those paragraphs which have no reference to our proceedings?— Certainly; much of them has no reference to the proceed- ings of the Committee; I had rather, however, not give an opinion upon that subject. If the Committee desire me to produce them, I will do so.
4622. Mr. D'Israeli.—When you state, in answer to
■ question of Mr. Hawes, that there are parts of the letters wholly irrelevant to the subject peculiarly under the consideration of the Committee, are the Committee to understand that the parts which are wholly irrelevant are entirely of a confidential character in other respects ?--- No; the parts which are irrelevant are of no particular consequence. I do not think they ought to be published. 4623. Do you think Lord Torrington could object to
our hearing the letters read, we exercising the discretion whether or not any part which is irrelevant should be omitted?The part which is relevant is the most awk- ward part of the letter.
4624. Lord Hotham.-Do those letters relate entirely to the subjects before this Committee?—Not at all. The last of them was written on the 3rd of May; I was not examined here till June.
4625. Mr. Hawes-Is the letter marked "private," or "private and confidential ?”—Yes; "private and con- fidential." I wish the Committee exactly to understand the state of the case.
4826. Lord Hotham-Do the letters relate to those matters which have since become the subject of inquiry before this Committee?—Yes, certainly they do.
Letters read. The witness was directed to with- draw.
The witness was again called in.
1627. Chairman.—As you have declined to accept the alternative offered to you by the Committee, namely, to withdraw all reference to the letters which you have re- ceived from Lord Torrington, you are requested to read to the Committee the extracts from those letters on which you rely for the purpose of showing that you have not been in the position of a confidential adviser of Lord Torrington throughout the transactions referred to in the answers to questions 4223, 4224, 4225, and 4226 ?—The following is what I should wish to put in to support my answer to question 4601. It is an extract, from a letter of the 3rd of May, 1849; “Errors may have been com- mitted, but none that I can see of any great magnitude ; but you know, and no one better, the great difficulties I þave had to contend against.” Then I omit a few words. *I think if you had understood me better, much of this