PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
'། ?། ། *། ། ·
Reference :-
C.O. 882
1
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
6221
6223
6224
6225
6227
6230
6242
€283
17
tax nor to the regulation, but to the annoyance to "the natives, who had to come from a distant part of the province to the central representative of the Government," for a licence, and then that they had to give in their applications in writing, and that writing "in English," a language which they did not understand; and that they had to pay 6d. and 3d. to a writer to prepare these applications.
That the ordinance requires "all to come on one day," under a penalty; that the people assembled in numbers in consequence, and were delayed, sent back, and told to return, many from a distance of thirty or forty miles.
And that in an instance within his own know- ledge, Mr. Gibson, the Government Agent, had applied to Lord Torrington for an extra clerk, to facilitate applications, and it was refused. He sayı
he was told this by Mr. Gibson himself. This he repeats (6239).
Mr. Layard says the ordinance took effect on the 1st of July; that all the operations were to take place on one day; that the people remonstrated on the 6th, and the rebellion broke out on the 28th.
In short, from Mr. Layard's evidence, it would appear that it was the Gun-tax that was the moving cause of the insurrection; and he expressly declares that at the tumultuous meetings which preceded the revolt, "the Gun ordinance was the ordinance that was alone objected to.”
Now each and all of these separate allegations is at variance with the facts. I shall dispose of each separately.
1. Mr. Layard says (6220) the natives were com. pelled to attend in person for the licence. No such On the thing was required by the ordinance. contrary, it expressly provided, Clause 2, that the application should be in writing, and not in person; and a description of the gum, with its maker's name or mark, to be inserted in the licence, was all that
the ordinance requested to be sent in.
2. Mr. Layard says the application was required
to be in English (6221), which the natives could not write.
No such arrangement was required; on the con- trary, a Singhalese document, written on a talipot leaf, was a complete compliance with the law, inas-
F
16
Regulation No. 1 of 1815 refers to salutary orders of the Dutch Government, which had failen into disuse; and declares that no person within the British settlements shall possess arms or ammu- nition without licence or registration, save Govern- ment officers, civil and military. Penalty--For- feiture of arms, and fine not exceeding 50 rixdollars.
Regulation No. 6 of 1817 prohibited importa- tion of arms and ammunition into the Kandyan provinces without licence. Penalty-Fine to ex- tent of 100 rixdollars; whipping, 150 lashes, or imprisonment for 12 months.
Proclamation, 21st Nov. 1818, prohibited pos- session of ordnance, arms, or ammunition by per- sons in the Kandyan provinces, without licence. Penalty-Banishment for life; corporal punishment, or imprisonment at discretion of Agent of Govern- ment convicting.
Regulation No 9 of 1820 prohibited sale or possession of ammunition without licence. Penalty -Fine, or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. The Ordinance introduced by Lord Torrington, No. 13 of 1847, prohibited the possession of fire- arms without licence, under penalty of a fine not exceeding 51. for first, and 101. for second offence.
Public opinion was decidedly with the Govern- ment in proposing this ordinance; it has been long discussed, and deliberately recommended on many previous occasions.
Even now it is urged that the objections to it lay not to the principle of the measure, or its operation, even as a source of revenue (likely to produce about 70001. a-year); but because of the vexatious provisions by which it was alleged to have been encumbered.
These supposed vexations provisions are enumerated by Mr. Henry Layard; but there is scarcely one of his statements that is not incon- sistent with the facts.
A glance at the ordinance itself would have satisfied Mr. Layard of his error.
But like almost all the allegations inculpating Lord Torrington's government, his charges have been made upon mere hearsay and misrepresenta- tion, and are without any real foundation in the ordinance itself.
Mr. Layard says the objection was neither to the
The Fire-Arme Ordnance waspro-
posed by Lord Torrington in the Executive Council on the 4th September, 1847, immediately after the murder of a magistrate, Mr. Dick, who was shot whilst attempting to arrest a fugitive from justice, and was expressly stated by him to be a measure of precaution and police.
6220
Page 180Page 181
PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
Reference :-
TC.O. 882
1
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
This is incorrect.
20
With the exception of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Wodehouse and Mr. Ackland, I am not aware of any European gentleman who opposed that measure.
The subject was referred to a select committee
of the Legislative Council, consisting of four officials:-
The Colonial Secretary;
The Queen's Advocate;
The Auditor-General;
The Government Agent, Colombo, (Mr. Gibeon);
One native gentleman, M. Edercmanesingam ;
One lawyer, Mr. Giffening;
Two British merchants, Mr. Crabbe, and Mr. Armitage.
As to the Shop licence their report says,
" With one exception the Committee are of opinion as to the propriety of the proposal;" and they even re- commend its extension to a number of towns in the interior, which they enumerate, exempting every- where shops under 51. yearly value.
The "one exception" here alluded to is that of Mr. Gibson, whose opposition to this ordinance has
been repeatedly alluded to by Mr. Ackland.
Mr. Gibson is a very good man of business for in-door work; but never having served in any situs- tion beyond the fort of Colombo, I do not attach the value to his opinion which Mr. Ackland does. Besides the reasons which he assigned for his objec. tion were in my opinion utterly unsound.
The only official gentlemen who objected to this Shop licence to me, were Mr. Wodehouse and Mr. Gibson, and the only argument they used was the fallacy that the retail shop-keepers were already excessively taxed, inasmuch as they paid to the Government the large import duties collected on the goods which they sold to the public! As I con- sidered that the public paid these duties ultimately themselves, and not the retail shop-keepers, I of course could not admit the validity of such a plea on behalf of the latter; and as they urged no better argument, I saw no grounds for adopting their opinion.
In a subsequent stage of the Bill, Mr. Ackland in the Council made a motion to defeat the mea- Bure; but in his movement to exclude the licences upon shops he stood alone, no other members of the Council voting with him.
1
L
21
Mr. Gibson did not vote; but in his absence the votes were 12 to 1. In fact, the members present were unanimous in their opposition to Mr. Ackland. The Carl-tax was essentially a police regulation. It was called for from the want of any carrier's law whatsoever.
Previously to its passing, the owner of a hired cart was not held responsible for the acts of his ser- vants and drivers.
And whole cart-loads of coffee on the way to Colombo were abstracted and sold in the bazaars, without any civil remedy against the cart-owner, who was not held accountable for the loss occasioned by the felony of those under him. The merchants and planters have repeatedly expressed to me their satisfaction with the ordinance to remedy such a state of things, and the ordinance for the purpose, when introduced in the Council, passed through all its stages without a shadow of opposition.
It was amended in committee on motions made
by the Government; but without a difference of
· opinion or a single division.
It has been suggested as injudicious to have intro- duced so many new taxing ordinances at one and the same time.
But I do not concur in this objection.
My belief is, that any one of them would equally have sufficed for the purpose of those whose object
was misrepresentation with a view to disturbance.
And that the natives would have been exposed to more dangerous agitation by a series of such ordi- nances, than by a simultaneous announcement of
the full extent of contemplated taxation.
In short, the expression is essentially correct, that these ordinances met with no opposition in their progress, and passed with a very general concurrence
in the Council and by the public.
On the whole, looking at the taxes proposed in
1
1847, I see no reason to doubt their propriety,
I am not insensible to the unpopularity of direct,
as compared with indirect, taxation, and I should prefer, if possible, to adopt the latter
But indirect taxes can only be realized off a popu- lation which consumes largely of tax-paying articles; and from a people who consume so sparingly as the Singhalese, the only article which can be assessed indirectly is the objectionable one of food.
G